This sentence appears on the front page of this morning's New York Times: "Mr. Rivas, 37, a construction worker, and his girlfriend were riding a train home from Lower Manhattan last month when he said a man screamed at them for no reason."
What happened on the train last month? Mr. Rivas said something? Or a man screamed at him? I think the Times is attempting to communicate that the screaming happened last month, not the saying. If so, it'd be better written: "Mr. Rivas, 37, a construction worker, said he and his girlfriend were riding a train home from Lower Manhattan last month when a man screamed at them for no reason." As is, the phrase "last month" is dropped into the sentence closer to "said" than it is to either "riding" or "screamed," making it sound like the interview with the Times happened last month.
The Times article has three bylines. How many reporters does it take to follow the Strunk and White elementary principle of composition: "Keep related words together"?
This problem is not confined to the Times. Here's a sentence from an editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal: "Media and progressive activists blamed the Hamas-initiated war on Israel, as they always do, but the White House did not go along." What does the phrase "on Israel" modify? The word "war," as in, a "war on Israel," like a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime"? Or does "on Israel" modify the word "blame," which is far away in the sentence. I think the Journal editorialists—generally among the world's sharpest wordsmiths—were trying to communicate something like, "Media and progressive activists blamed Israel for the Hamas-initiated war, as they always do, but the White House did not go along." Again, the fix is the Strunk and White elementary principle of composition: "Keep related words together."