眼前有一个引人注目的标题:《郊区普遍开展人工防雹工作》。如果这个城市的郊区果真“普遍开展”了人工防雹工作,那可是个了不起的成绩。但一看文字,并不是那样。文内说:已有“四百八十六个大队建立了一支以民兵为主、专群结合的防雹队伍,配备了土炮、土火箭、高射炮等防雹工具”。这个城市的郊区共有三千八百多个大队,建立防雹队伍的仅约占百分之十三,怎么能讲是“普遍开展”呢? 但是,在我们的新闻报道中,这种形容不讲分寸,喜欢尽量往高、大、全、满处说的风气,至今并没有完全改过来。有的同志甚至成了一种习惯,一写文章,这类“高级”形容词就从笔下大量涌出。比如: 写一项工作的贯彻,实际精况本来是参差 There is a compelling headline: “The general artificial anti-hail work in the suburbs.” If the outskirts of the city really “carried out” artificial hail work, it is a remarkable achievement. But look at the text, not so. The text said: “There have been four hundred and eighty-six brigades established a militia-based, combined with the anti-hail team, equipped with soil artillery, earth rockets, anti-aircraft guns and other anti-hail tools.” There are a total of over 3,800 brigades on the outskirts of the city and only about 13% of the anti-hail troops are established. How can this be said to be “universal”? However, in our news coverage, Speaking propriety, like to go as high as possible, big, full, everywhere say the ethos, has not completely changed over. Some comrades have even become a habit of writing essays. Such “advanced” adjectives have flooded out from their writings. For example: to write a job’s implementation, the actual situation was originally mixed