Rather than messing with whom

JUNE CASAGRANDE

Appalling. Absolutely scandalous. Are you all as shocked I am about

the state of network news? I mean, I flip on the tube and, within

minutes, I can’t believe my ears. That’s right, in front of the whole

nation, I heard Peter Jennings call Saddam Hussein “an Iraqi that

America knows well,” not “ ... whom America knows well.” Not even “

... who America knows well.”

Is the state of American journalism so low that formerly respected

professionals have been reduced to this?

For all you six- and seven-figure-earning network newscasters out

there, here’s the rule. An inanimate object is a “that.” A person is

a “who.”

Of course, once you start following that rule, it’s a slippery

slope to that most hated of all grammar subjects: “whom.” Many people

seem to think using “whom” makes you sound like a snob at best or, if

you use it wrong, like a fool at worst. So broadcasters opt to be

wrong on purpose rather than by accident.

A quick refresher: “Who” is a subject; “whom” is an object. The

difference is intuitive to any native speaker. “I,” “he,” “she,”

“they,” “we” and “she” are all subjects. “Me,” “him,” “her,” “them”

and “us” are all objects. If you don’t know whether to use “who” or

“whom,” just plug in “he” or “him” and you’ll see whether you need a

subject or an object.

Of course, disregard this if you’d rather be wrong.

Speaking of Rather be wrong, I bet some of you thought I was

referring to another little flap in the world of network news. That

one’s a heartbreaker. But it holds some important lessons.

Whenever a news story uses unnamed sources, it tells you that a

reporter and his editors were so desperate to land the story that

they were willing to break some rules of news gathering. Sometimes,

this is the only way to get important information to readers. But

more often than not, the use of unnamed sources is an indication that

a reporter forgot who he works for. His job is not the relentless

pursuit of glory for himself. His job is the humble pursuit of solid

facts for the reader.

I’m considered a freak among journalists because I don’t believe

in competition. Once a reporter becomes obsessed with beating the

competition, that reporter is thinking only of himself. Editors have

argued with me, saying that without competition there would be no

incentive to get good stories. Baloney. When I was a reporter at the

Daily Pilot, we had no direct competition. That is, no one else

attempted to cover Newport-Mesa as thoroughly as we did. (And when

they did try, boy did we whoop ‘em.) Nonetheless, the other reporters

and I didn’t atrophy into human mush and spend our days simply

rewording press releases. No, we all worked hard on getting important

stories simply because it was our job and we wanted to do it well.

But that’s not how things work in the big leagues.

Sadly, we’re so conditioned to believe there’s a political bias in

the news, no one can see this real bias -- the “I’m-a-hot-shot-

reporter-who-lands-big-stories- and-should-be-revered” bias.

One of my most enlightening experiences on the subject occurred in

the bathroom at the Balboa Bay Club. I was there to cover a Maria

Shriver talk just before the recall election. In the bathroom, I

overheard a group of cynical news consumers -- members of a

Republican women’s group -- talking about the Los Angeles Times’

coverage of groping allegations against then-candidate Arnold

Schwarzenegger.

I don’t recall any of the women’s words in that bathroom, but they

all believed the Los Angeles Times had broken the story out of

political motives. They believed they were being lied to and

manipulated and, understandably, they were angry. But they were so

angry that they dismissed even the remote possibility that the

allegations might be true. That’s sad to me, because it means people

feel so burned that they’ve lost the energy to care about truth. They

don’t weigh the reported facts against the reliability of the source.

They simply throw the reported facts into the trash. This has become

the standard reaction every time a reporter’s self-serving pursuit of

a scoop can be interpreted as political.

Me? I’d rather stick to grammar. So I’ll end by noting that above,

I wrote, “ ... forgot who he works for” instead of “forgot whom he

works for” or “forgot for whom he works.” I did that because a

high-ranking White House official told me, on the condition of

anonymity, that it was OK.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].