[Grammar] Tenses usage in news reports

[s1113150]

This morning, I was reading a news report from NZ Herald, which is a New Zealand newspaper company.
The tenses in the following sentence have raised my interest.

The tourists at the centre of a storm after leaving rubbish on Takapuna Beach and abusing a local woman have spoken exclusively to the Herald.

Among their counter-claims, they say one of their children was assaulted at the beach and denied fleeing restaurants without paying for their meals.

When the news was written, the interview with the family should have been done. Why didn't the writer use past tense (an action happened in a particular time in the past) or present perfect(in case the time of the interview is not important)?

Thanks for helping!

 

[Tdol]

You can use the present when narrating past events as a way of making the story seem more lively, often switching from the present to the past, as the person does here with denied.

 

[kadioguy]

You can use the present when narrating past events as a way of making the story seem more lively, often switching from the present to the past, as the person does here with denied.

Why does the writer switch the tense from the past to the present with say and then switch back with denied?

 

[Rover_KE]

This morning, I was reading a news report from NZ Herald, which is a New Zealand newspaper company.
The tenses in the following sentence have raised my interest.

...

Welcome to yhe forum, s1113150.

I see you have posted the same question here.

We recommend posting a question on one forum only initially. If you do not get a satisfactory answer from that forum and you feel that you have exhausted its possibilities, then of course trying a different forum might help. It is only courteous however, to tell the second forum that you have already asked the question on another forum and then give a precis of the answers you received there, or provide a link to it, along with an explanation of why you are now looking elsewhere.(emsr2d2)

Why does he switch the tense from the past to the present with say and then switch back with denied?

As Tdol said, it's a journalistic device for making a story seem more lively.

 

[kadioguy]

As Tdol said, it's a journalistic device for making a story seem more lively.

But why not just keep on using the present tense? I mean, when should we switch the tense back (from the present to the past)?

 

[s1113150]

Thanks for reminding. I will post it in one forum next time.

However, I still do not understand the thing about changing present tense to past tense to make it more lively.
If the writer wanted to make the incident more lively, wasn't him supposed to change past tense to present tense?
I have seen some cases in which the news headlines are written in present tense to achieve such a goal.
Please refer to https://harshdivya.wordpress.com/20...-in-headlines-and-past-tense-in-news-reports/ for more information.

Thanks for helping!

 

[jutfrank]

I'm not convinced that the change of tense within the sentence was completely deliberate. I don't believe that the writer was trying to make the narrative more lively. It may have been the result of a lack of attention.

I feel that the sentence would be improved by keeping the present tense for the second verb phrase (deny instead of denied).

 

[kadioguy]

I'm not convinced that the change of tense within the sentence was completely deliberate. I don't believe that the writer was trying to make the narrative more lively. It may have been the result of a lack of attention.

So do you think the writer should have meant to write "said" instead of "say"?

 

[jutfrank]

So do you think the writer should have meant to write "said" instead of "say"?

No, I didn't mean that.

It's very common in this kind of journalism to use the present tense form of the reporting verb say. I was just entertaining the possibility that the change from present to past in that sentence was not a completely conscious decision.

 

[kadioguy]

No, I didn't mean that.

It's very common in this kind of journalism to use the present tense form of the reporting verb say. I was just entertaining the possibility that the change from present to past in that sentence was not a completely conscious decision.

I am a little confused. You said "I don't believe that the writer was trying to make the narrative more lively. It may have been the result of a lack of attention" in post #7, and Tdol said "You can use the present when narrating past events as a way of making the story seem more lively" in post #2. Thus I thought you meant the writer used the present tense by mistake. Was I wrong in thinking this?:-?

 

[jutfrank]

Thus I thought you meant the writer used the present tense by mistake. Was I wrong in thinking this?:-?

Yes.

I meant that the change to the past tense could have been the result of a lack of attention.

 

[kadioguy]

I meant that the change to the past tense could have been the result of a lack of attention.

Then I don't understand what you meant by saying below.

I don't believe that the writer was trying to make the narrative more lively.

Shouldn't the present tense make the narrative more lively? You didn't believe that the writer was trying to make the narrative more lively. If the writer was not trying to make the narrative more lively, he or she should have used the past tense in all sentences, shouldn't he or she? If so, it was the present tense that could have been the result of a lack of attention. :-?

 

[jutfrank]

Shouldn't the present tense make the narrative more lively? You didn't believe that the writer was trying to make the narrative more lively. If the writer was not trying to make the narrative more lively, he or she should have used the past tense in all sentences, shouldn't he or she? If so, it was the present tense that could have been the result of a lack of attention. :-?

Never mind.

 

[Rover_KE]

The OP appears to have lost interest, anyway.

 

[kadioguy]

I found an online version:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12190622

Exclusive: Unruly tourists speak out as deportation looms

The tourists at the centre of a storm after leaving rubbish on Takapuna Beach and abusing a local woman have spoken exclusively to the Herald.

Among their counter-claims, they say one of their children was assaulted at the beach and denied fleeing restaurants without paying for their meals.

John Johnson, his brother, David, as well as their partners and children, including a young baby, and mother Eileen Doran, of Liverpool, and father, say the social media furore which kicked off due to rubbish left on the beach has cut short their holiday and they'll return home a week earlier than planned.

However, Immigration NZ has confirmed the group have been issued a deportation notice.

INZ assistant general manager Peter Devoy said Deportation Liability Notices (DLN) were served on individuals involved in the incident at Burger King in Hamilton today.

People on temporary visas can be served deportation notices relating to character.

Immigration officers advised the individuals of their appeal rights and provided the relevant documentation for them to appeal if they wanted to, Devoy said.

Just hours after speaking to the Herald, the family were spoken to by police and immigration officers.

Police and immigration were called to Burger King Te Rapa, Hamilton, by staff after alleged unruly behaviour by the family of travellers.

A staff member said they were at the store this morning causing a nuisance, complaining about and asking for free food. The children were also banging coins on the machines, as other guests looked on.

(deleted...)
-----------
Compared to the text in red, the text in blue seems a typo (about the tense). What do you think?