Rewrite 1

[나는어디로]

When I read newspapers I see some articles about public service agents'(hereafter PSA) crimes at times. Since I'm serving military duty as a PSA, those articles attract my attention. So I read them carefully and often find some problems which make me angry, against which many PSAs also feel resentment.

I don't think writing about crimes is wrong. But the problem is those kinds of articles are far-fetched. Their titles are often exaggerated and imply that PSAs have big problems. But actually, such articles just enumerate some statistics and crimes that have been committed by only a few PSAs and say that the government should do something about it, which is virtually futile. Journalists seem to just try to put us in predicament under the guise of advice. What I don't understand is they don't consider the crimes committed by PSAs the same as those committed by other

kinds of people. Is there any reason that PSAs must not commit a crime? I don't mean committing a crime isn't a big deal. But what I mean is what on earth is so special about crimes committed by PSAs. Is it like we should be careful because we serve non-militarily? Judging from other people's responses to PSAs' ones to those offensive articles I'm sure that's one of the reasons that those annoying articles can be written so easily.

I want journalists to think more deeply and get rid of their biases about PSAs. What is more important than drawing people's attention is not twisting the truth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I read *papers(E) I see some articles about public service agents'(hereafter PSA) crimes at times(E, Pn). Since I'm serving military duty as a PSA, those articles attract my attention. So I read them carefully and then/often find something makes (G) me angry, *which many PSAs even(E) feel resentment against it.

I don't think writing about crimes is wrong. But the problem is those kinds of articles are far-fetched. Their titles are often exaggerated and seem to say/ imply that PSAs have big problems. But actually, such articles just enumerate some statics and crimes that was/have been committed by only few PSAs and make comments/say that the government should do something about it, which is virtually futile. Journalists seem to just try to put us in predicament under the guise of advice. What I don't understand is they don't consider the crimes committed by PSAs the same, such as is done by any group of people/ as those committed by other kinds of people. Is there any reason that PSAs must not commit a crime? I don't mean committing a crime isn't a big deal. * I mean what on earth is the big deal/ so special about crimes committed by PSAs. Is it like we should be careful because we serve non-militarily? Judging from other people's responses to PSAs' ones(U), I'm sure that's one of the reasons that those annoying articles can be written [so] easily.

I want journalists to think more deeply and get rid of their biases about PSAs. What is more important than drawing people's attention is not twisting the truth.

Comments

papers: If you say just 'papers' at the very beginning, the reader would not know what paper you mean. Use a clearer word when it's introduced first.

which ... it: This sentence is ungrammatical as a relative clause. --> rewrite.

I mean what on earth...: --> But what I mean is what on earth... / It would be good to connect this sentence with the previous one with a semicolon (;), in which case 'But' should be in de-capitalized. 

[나는어디로]

Why not 'at times'? and Is it wrong to use 'any group of people' insteard of 'ohter kinds of people'?

[유진승]

at times: It is very widely used in place of sometimes, but here, I felt that it is most natural to say: "I sometimes see[find] artieles about..." Here, right now, I can't explain why I don't feel comfortable with "at times" here, but I will try to find an explanation soon.

[유진승]

some problems which make me angry, against which many PSAs also feel resentment --> things that make me and my fellow PSAs angry / "other kinds of people" is more general than "groups". People don't always make groups. / be careful --> be especially careful

[유진승]

Judging from other people's responses to PSAs' ones to those offensive articles ->Unclear

[유진승]

at times: This word seems fine. I change my mind. ^^ I've concluded that it's just my lack of enough familiarity with "at times" that gave me the feeling of misfit. This expression is much less used than sometimes, but still it is a good, valid one.

[나는어디로]

Ha, I see. ^^