Harold Kruger of The Appeal-Democrat belittles a Prospector editorial in the same Sunday column in which he critiques a New York Times article. We are flattered to find ourselves in such company.
In his May 7 column, Kruger lets loose with some uncanny observations and keen analysis of The Prospector editorial, “Renovating the Redneck Ghetto.”
After quoting an entire paragraph from the editorial, Kruger admits, “True enough.”
Thank you, Mr. Kruger. Your approval means volumes.
Following one sentence of his own, Kruger then quotes yet another paragraph from The Prospector and asks, “Uh, where is this going?”
Great analysis, sir! Brief! Yes, very brief. But oh, biting commentary, with poignant analysis. We at The Prospector appreciate your insight and thoughtful critique.
Kruger then quotes another paragraph, followed by, “Yes, there’s more.”
Nice transition, Mr. Kruger. We like the way you string together entire paragraphs of quotes, making it seem as if you really have something to say. It’s almost like you are simply filling space with quotes. But we can read the subtext, sir. We know that hidden behind the two or three words of your own looms some damning, albeit unexpressed, thought. Again, great analysis sir. Wonderful commentary.
Kruger then-and this should come as no surprise to you by now-quotes yet another paragraph from The Prospector verbatim for his Appeal-Democrat readers, followed by yet another transition: “And in conclusion.”
You just can’t write a better transition than “in conclusion.” How else can a writer terminate a piece of prose that is going nowhere? Besides, readers need to know that soon, very soon, they will be allowed to get off this nightmare of a ride. More importantly, “in conclusion” provides that veneer of originality while stringing together entire paragraphs which are quoted from another newspaper.
After Kruger quotes one last paragraph from the editorial, he wraps up his entire argument with some clever synthesis: “And so that’s the view from Yuba College. Your tax dollars at work.”
Again, biting commentary. We understand perfectly what is implied here. No need to explain. Not that you would. But thank-you, Mr. Kruger, for demonstrating journalistic prose at its finest.