If I taught journalism...

...I would use this article as an example of How Not to Write.

Polygamist dress a study in faith vs. fashion

There's so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. Paragraph 6 seems like a fair place:

The appearance of unity through uniform dress, however, can belie the jealousy that often arises when the women -- who might all look alike to an outsider -- find themselves in competition with one another over the affections of the same man, Llewellyn says.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? It's the first glaring example of dragging the sensational aspects of polygamy into an article that purports to be about more than just a profile of the group. It seems intended to satisfy those who would only read about the FLDS situation in order to be somehow titillated or validated in their presumptions about the lifestyle.

Any time I picture someone sitting at lunch and saying, "I read at CNN.com that blah blah blah," and the blah blah blah is something like the above, it's all I can do to keep myself from wincing.

Jump down with me to paragraph 11.

The bangs are grown out and rolled (but usually not using a curling iron, because that would be too modern). There are sausage curls on the sides and often braids down the back.

Too modern? These are people who live in houses, not tents in the woods. The communities own and drive cars. They're not Mennonites. You can't just throw that aside in there and expect people to believe you. Substantiate!

Now paragraphs 13 and 14:

Celebrity stylist and salon owner Ted Gibson thinks it gives off a "homely" impression.

"It says 'I don't really care very much. I really don't have time to worry about the way that I look, because I have 20 children,"' Gibson said. "'He's going from wife to wife to wife, so why should I look any better than the other ones?"'

Where do I start? Why do I care what celebrity stylist Ted Gibson thinks about these women's hair? Homely is in the eye of the beholder, is it not? Could someone not bring that point into this?

And how does his incorrect speculation (20 children? by one woman? -- I've seen articles where the women had two, or five, but 20?) add to the question of faith vs. fashion? A celebrity stylist is going to tell us what a fundamentalist polygamist is thinking? And how they dress and behave in the privacy of their own homes? I mean, I don't know, either, but I'm certainly not going to speculate and call it a news story.

And these are not low-maintenance hairstyles. Women who "don't care" don't wear elaborate updos. Why is it never brought up that people adopt and accept fashions within their own communities? Does this writer really mean to imply that these women look at themselves and each other and think, "Man, Rose looks homely today! She's really letting herself go!"

Paragraph 15 and 16:

Still, it's not outlandish to imagine the prairie look influencing today's styles, given that trends can come from unexpected places, and Sevigny is known as a style-setter. You can already find blouses with high necks and ruffles in stores, and puffed shoulders on short and long-sleeved shirts.

Prairie skirts are in fashion this season, while dusty pastels and neutrals are being introduced to offset trendy bold colors and patterns.

"Still, it's not outlandish to imagine the prairie look influencing today's styles"--Not outlandish by whose judgment? Influencing in what way? By being the same as fashions already on the shelves? Is there not a better way to tie this content together?

The writer can't possibly be ignorant of the fact that it takes a year or more to bring a style into the fashion mainstream. Why not instead comment on the seeming coincidence that this group is drawn into the public eye just as fashions that seem to reflect their lifestyle are available in stores (instead of implying some phantom cause and effect relationship)?

Paragraph 17:

Long hair is also on its way back in, preparing to replace the currently fashionable bobs, Gibson says. Buns never go completely out of style, according to Gibson -- he often gives celebrities a half-up-half-down 'do, essentially what we're seeing in the photographs coming out of Texas.

I beg the writer's pardon, but I am quite sure that the half-up, half-down 'dos that Gibson is perpetrating on his celebrity clients are not at all like the hairstyles seen on the women from the FLDS compound. In the first place, I have yet to see a photo of a polygamist woman with half-up, half-down hair, unless you count the single strand of braid that some of them sport.

Paragraph 20:

"Unexpected perversion? Right-wing fads?" Susan Cernek wrote. "Sounds like a good Halloween costume ... or Marc Jacobs Spring '09."

By all means, let's cap off this article about "faith vs. fashion" by quoting some pithy insults about the women being profiled. By all means.

Why does the writer completely ignore the idea that perhaps these societies reject trendy fashion on faith-based principles? That would have been an excellent opportunity to bring up any correlations between the rejection of mainstream trends in both insular societies and society at large, to the extent that it exists. The article never once suggests that these women might be perfectly content with their appearances--or that they might have subtle trends of their own, fashion cycles within their own society. I'm sure the polygamist expert could have offered something on that account.

Lazy, lazy writing! Unstructured and not resembling responsible journalism in any way, shape or form. I get that fun, gossipy fashion articles are meant to be fun and gossipy, but they still need integrity and organization.

And if a random editor stuck that title on the article, shame on that person. What we need less of, in this day and age, is soundbite thinking and vagaries in what claims to be the news.

Boo! Hiss!