Kirk Mottram, I usually avoid commenting on writing styles. I realize because I have not undergone rigorous journalism training at this University, my opinion will more than likely fall by your wayside as unlearned.

I am just a graduating senior in political science, spending my past four years studying a topic I assume you have an interest in reporting. So here is my advice.

Watch your words. Your choice of idiomatic expressions to illustrate the debating sides of the abortion issue is VERY skewed. Using the term pro-choice is common and generally accepted. But your use of anti-choice (NOW endorses Schmidt for governor, Jan. 15) is a dead give-away to your personal opinion on the issue. The term pro-life has served its purpose and will not confuse the casual reader.

Advertisement

If you are indeed a reporter-hopeful, you should have been taught this. Although I have heard that journalism schools have become a travesty, merely serving as institutions of inculcating political views of the writing professionals who teach creating liberal larva, if you will.

The structure of your article would also lead readers to believe that you must adore the candidate about whom you write. This is not good.

It is fine to support a politician, but do you believe reporters should glorify candidates? Come to think of it, the love apparently thrown at the Chicago Democrat could be negatively received in Southern Illinois, causing the opposite of your assumed desired affect.

For example, I am sure you are weary, as I am, of reading professional journalists either vilifying or lionizing President Clinton when reporting Washington goings-on.

Basically, someone someday may decide your opinion matters and give you the appropriate position. Until then, do the American people some justice. Please practice the reporting of unbiased facts.