THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, December 11, 1994 TAG: 9412100017
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Medium: 83 lines
If Dec. 7, 1941, is the date that will live in infamy, then the Pilot made an infamous error on Wednesday's front page.
Under the heading ``Remember Pearl Harbor,'' a short text noted that the ``first Japanese bombs fell 52 years ago at 7:55 a.m.''
Make that 53 years ago, said at least a dozen callers. They were right, of course.
I've always thought of Dec. 7 as a date that is ingrained in our collective memory. Obviously, some of us forget. Others have special reasons for remembering.
Among those calling Wednesday was George C. Barnes Jr. of Portsmouth. He remembers because his father served in the Navy during World War II. Jean Pappas of Virginia Beach couldn't forget either because she and her husband, a Navy officer, were living in Hawaii three years ago when ceremonies there marked the invasion's 50th anniversary.
And another Virginia Beach resident, Willem Roelofsen, remembers because he grew up in the Netherlands East Indies, now Indonesia. Months after the attack, he and his family were interned in Japanese camps.
Some callers were also disturbed that the only other tribute to Pearl Harbor in the Pilot on Dec. 7 was about an old World War II song, ``Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.''
``This is a Navy town,'' said Patricia Mehle of Virginia Beach, ``and I think people need to be reminded that it was the Japanese who attacked us.''
Usually there are plenty of reminders of major battles - especially on 10th and 50th and 100th anniversaries. That was certainly the case on Dec. 7, 1991. The top half of the Pilot-Ledger's front page and an entire special section were devoted to the invasion of Pearl Harbor 50 years earlier, with our own reporter and photographer staffing the parade and ceremonies in Hawaii.
Other World War II battles have gotten their share of attention (and not just, as some callers claimed, stories for ``bleeding-heart liberals'' about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). You can expect to see a story in next week's Pilot and Ledger about the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.
But generally news folk tend to shrug off anniversaries. Otherwise, they could run a half-dozen such stories each day, especially about war. That's no consolation to someone who fought in a battle, or lost someone to it, but so it goes.
Still, Pearl Harbor stands out among the others. And while the origins of the old WWII song made interesting reading, I think we could have had more of a tribute this year, whether it was the 52nd or 53rd anniversary - or any other.
RECUSED, NOLLE PROSSED & NONPLUSED. Readers frequently take out their wrath on the editorial page. But John F. Marshall of Virginia Beach had a different reason from most.
He objected to the wording in Thursday's lead editorial about state Attorney General James Gilmore and a University of Virginia case.
The next-to-last sentence said, ``Gilmore might have been wise to recuse himself from this case.''
It was ``recuse'' that annoyed Marshall. ``Why use a $10 word,'' he asked, ``when a $2 or $3 word would have done as well?''
I'm not fond of jargon, though there's a difference between jargon and words that are precise if unfamiliar. But where do you draw the line? For journalists, that question comes up a lot when they write about education, the military and other fields with their own lingos.
Surely there's nothing wrong with adding a $10 word to one's vocabulary. Or with learning that ``recuse'' means ``to disqualify or withdraw from a position of judging, as because of prejudice or personal interest.''
But it's a word that Bill Burke usually avoids, and he edits most of the newspapers' court stories. In fact, it seems to be a word that most writers and editors avoid. In a computer search of staff-written stories over the past four years, ``recuse'' showed up only a half-dozen times. And in one of those cases it was defined parenthetically as ``legally excuse.''
Burke said he eschews (oops, make that ``avoids'') most legal jargon and prefers, in this case, ``disqualifies,'' ``removes'' or ``excuses.'' But maybe Burke should recuse himself from this discussion.
One court story Wednesday had an even heavier legalism, ``nolle prossed.'' Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall's!
MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer message to
lynn(AT)infi.net. by CNB