Right. I can't stand when "respected" news web sites and newspapers have misspellings. It irks me. It makes me want to kill kittens. Lots of harmless, fluffy kittens. And I like kittens. Maybe more than I'd care to admit. Yet, if anyone should not be exempt from the occasional typo, it's these guys (no, not the kittens -- the journalists, I mean). Because it's their job!!!! (Was that enough exclamation marks? I could add another...)
For example, the following homonymic error was culled from a web site:
quote:
Congressional Democrats are mostly silent or complementary of the president on inauguration today, but not all of them.
What's wrong with the part in bold, you ask? Well, dang it, I'll tell you what's wrong with it: It's supposed to be "complimentary." Naturally, "complementary" means something entirely different. No doubt, countless people will see this and think that's how "complimentary" is spelled... The world will end! It will, I tell you! It will end because of this!
Okay, I feel better. Thanks for letting me whinge. Please use this topic to rant about whatever you'd like. Anything at all. Probably should have something to do with writing, tho'... you know, considering the board 'n' stuff.
EDIT: see link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whinge
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 22, 2005).]
Does that help?
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 22, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by W. Rought (edited January 23, 2005).]
quote:
Well, friend, definitely do not pick up the New York Times, unless you want run-on sentences and bad grammar telling you exactly what the Untied Nations is up to.
Noted. Is grammar even covered in Journalism schools and classes? At least one of us here on hatrack is/has been a journalist -- was it Dakota? I can't remember, but I think I recall Mike's topic asking for help [too lazy to search for it, I suppose].
Thinking about it, one thing I really hate about newspapers are headlines. I understand there is limited space to make a sensationalized blurb that catches the eye, but crumbs!, some of them look like a four-year old wrote it. Heck, maybe a child could do better writing headlines after all.
The worst part is when the headline is misleading, designed solely to get your attention, often speculating on a possible motive or terrible outcome. And when you read the story, there's no credible evidence put forth to rationalize that conjecture written in the headline. I know the press is a business, needs to sell papers or get viewers, but for the love of sanity, please be somewhat objective, fair and honest.
Of course, that goes against the time-honored tradition of the free press furthering an agenda of some sort -- whichever side of the political spectrum they fall on. They are all guilty of it, no side better than the other.
And, strangely, I think a free press is a good thing: it helps keep governments and big businesses in check; the press can be a watchdog for the people, look out for the little guy and so forth. But why have we allowed them license to deliberately mislead us? If they have an agenda, then they should be upfront about it, not surreptitiously hiding it within what is supposed to be factual accountings of any given event; spinning a story so that it elicits the maximum amount of emotion from a reader or viewer.
Bah, I say. Just the facts, please.
And no, I'm not the former journalist. I think it was Robyn_Hood.
All a malady of the times, IMO. They just don't stress things like spelling and grammar and handwriting in schools anymore, and we're starting to see the results in the professional sector, it seems.
But, one could look at it in a different way--the beginning of the evolution (or rather DEvolution) of the language. It is a sign, IMO, of the crumbling of the most advanced society ever to be seen on earth. We'll be back in the linguistic days of Shakespeare (who spelled his OWN NAME two different ways in his OWN WILL!) before long.
http://education.independent.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=602286
[This message has been edited by Gwalchmai (edited January 24, 2005).]
Thanks for the link, Gwalch.
[currently stewing on a new rant... need to gather my thoughts about it.]
The fact is that English does have some basic grammer and syntax. You can rearrange and re-punctuate the words in most sentances to mean something completely different from the original, so syntax and punctuation do matter. But it should be taught in that more natural sense of pointing out cases where the students have inadvertently written nonsense or things completely opposite their intended meanings. Trying to get kids to memorize a vast number of complicated rules that have thousands of exceptions (supposedly defined by even more complicated and abstruse rules) is and always was a hopeless endeavor.
Anyway, don't watch those little captions across the bottom of CNN. You won't like them.
quote:
The problem is that English doesn't really have a strong grammer.
Grammar.
I cringe at misspellings too (but I hate to say anything, especially here, because I know that the ability to spell correctly does not correlate directly with intelligence. It probably correlates more with whether someone learns visually or not, or whether people memorize things like correct spellings by visualizing the words in their heads).
Even though I tend to be able to remember how to spell things correctly most of the time, I will look up words I'm not sure about(like "misspellings"--because on the one hand, I think it ought to have three "s"s; and on the other hand, I'm glad it doesn't) to be sure I've spelled them correctly before writing something down where people can read it. Every writer's desk should have a dictionary on it.
Anyway, to Survivor's point: I had never thought about English grammar that way, but it makes a lot of sense.
It explains why so-called English grammarians felt the need to impose rules from Latin grammar onto English (like "no split infinitives" and "no prepositions at the end of a sentence or clause")--they had to borrow rules from somewhere else because English didn't have them on its own.
It also explains why studying another language helps one to understand English grammar better--because I'd guess that almost any language out there would have a stronger grammar than English in some respect, and learning stronger grammar has got to help one understand what is going on in a weaker grammar.
It also explains why trying to learn English grammar is such a struggle--because it's so complicated. And it's so complicated because it's not a natural grammar, but a cobbled-together grammar for a cobbled-together language.
Thank you, Survivor. I love it when someone's insights make things clearer to me.
Journalism is very formulaic and I think one of my instructors once said it is truly simple enough that even monkeys could do it. That doesn't mean they could do it well, though.
**************************************************
***Caution: Extreme ranting in defense of Journalists. Read at your own peril.***
**************************************************
Yes they teach you grammar and spelling and other language arts, that does not mean that it is learned ! But you also have to consider that most of what you see in a newspaper is a first-draft. Especially if it is a hard news story. The smaller the market, the greater the likelihood that a story has been revised. Anything that is written for a daily paper probably went straight from the reporter's desk to the copy-editors. If the article was taken off a wire like CP, AP or Reuters, it is probable that it is a first-draft and that it has seen very little copy-editting.
Now (in the words of Dennis Miller) I don't want to get off on a rant here, but...
It would be nice if everything that made it into print was perfect. That there were no misspellings or improper usages or bad grammar, but that isn't possible given the pace of the news media.
In the need to be first and deliver information fast, it is not unheard of for half-written stories to ripped from the fingers of the reporter and slapped-up, mostly un-read and un-editted, on the company website just to get the scoop and compete with other news organizations.
It takes a special kind of writer to exist and thrive in that environment. What would the quality of your writing be if you had to go to a meeting or press conference and call back with your lede, bridge, quote within minutes of the darn thing ending and hopefully it fits with the story you prepared an hour before attending the event? How good are your first drafts? Good enough to publish?
As for just the facts... All I can say is six of one, half a donzen of the other. If you write a story that only covers the facts there are going to be people calling to complain that you didn't tell them anything they didn't already know, because "they were there". Where's the perspective? Why didn't you write about X, Y, or Z? You get it from both sides.
Headlines? Well, it isn't always easy coming up with something smart or witty when you've been working for 20 hours and you need to get both the paper, and yourself, to bed. As for misleading? Well, for major newspapers, journalists seldom write their headlines. Often, the person doing the writing has done nothing more than read the first three sentences of the story. They try to come up with something quickly and then move on to the next one. This is usually one of the last things to do before printing the paper, and it isn't easy to come up with 15 headlines plus the occasional deck for 15 different stories.
Objectivity in the media? Secret agendas? Free press? ROTFL! Journalist may try, but bias is so deeply ingrained in the culture of the media, it is unlikely to vanish any time soon. The best a poor reporter can hope for is fair and balanced. But that takes up more space than most papers are willing to spend.
----
Phew! I didn't really intend to rant quite so much and I apologize if I sound too cynical and jaded. Suffice it to say, journalists get no respect
I know the life of any journalist is fraught with deadlines and editorial woe. I actually have respect for anyone capable of choosing this for a career. I may not respect their ideas or motivations, though.
But, you see the idea of whinging is to forget all rationality and moan about something that irks you. Rants are marginally higher on the complaint scale than a whinge, because a rant generally requires superior knowledge of a subject -- I have superior knowledge of few things, much to my chagrin. Thus, I whinge (or whine). Or perhaps more aptly stated:
I am [human], therefore I whinge.
I was being pithy...
Grammar! Hilarious.
I prefer not to think of English as weak gramatically. Not at all. I just like to think of it as a very "flexible" language!!!
As for errors of spelling, I've seen numerous novels with typos in them. One should think that the editors would catch most of this. But I guess a 100,000 word story is tough to keep perfect.
My real big beef, however, is with high school teachers and the assignments they give their students. One kid came to me for help with his "project" which required interviewing someone who worked for an international compnay. I asked to see the assignment. The paper he produced was a disgrace. I don't expect a high school history teacher or business teacher to be masters of creative writing, but when they spend two paragraphs outlining a report a kid is expected to do, they ought to at least have some sense of what it is they're asking for. This assignment had no clear requirements, no clear agenda or goal, no clear theme, no clear structure.
No wonder the kid had no idea where to start.
I set him up with a co-worker from India, had him stick a bunch of mumble-jumbo about diversity and equal opportunity, and the kid got an A. (It helps at least to know that the teacher in question attended a local Kerry rally...it's amazing how far a simply knowledge of an instructor's politics will get you in school!!!)
my 2 twisted little pennies
I think that something in my genetic makeup remembers the Middle English spelling or something like that.
quote:
I always thought the dolphins were the most advanced society on the Earth.
No, no. It's the mice!
My wife says that when society, i.e. government, tries to include everyone equally in its laws, it is doomed for failure. She cites the Roman empire as example of this. How many different cultures did the Romans absorb into their own? A lot, from what little I know about it, and it became impossible to legislate. Differing beliefs among the different cultures. And while it wasn't the only factor that contributed to the fall of Rome, it was there niggling away and sowing the seeds of discontent. I can't say that my wife is correct in her views, but I certainly see her point.
For Christmas, one of my gifts is a book titled Rubicon... it's supposed to be a fairly good history of the Roman expansionism and history. I'm looking forward to reading it on the 23-hour plane journey we have to take this year for our holiday in Australia. I want to read this book because I was utterly disinterested in history classes in school. They were boring, often trite, and as a teenager, I had more "important" things on my mind than what happened a few thousand years ago -- like scraping up enough change for a few gallons of gas to fuel my 1967 VW Bug. (I still miss that car -- sorry I killed you little guy.)
As an adult, history fascinates me. In the words of Morrissey, of the 80's group "The Smiths": "All those people, all those lives, where are they now?" The song was "Cemetary Gates." This song is about two people meeting at a graveyard reading poetry to each other often making up their own prose to pass it off as some famous poet, like Keats and Yeats, or Oscar Wilde.
More to the point: Are we any better off, more informed, any smarter than all of those who came before us? Does history constantly repeat itself as some people claim it does? Are we always going to repeat the same mistakes over and over because we are no different -- we are simply human.
Even more to the point: Is our current obsession with fairness for all and political correctness getting in the way of good common sense? Is it truly possible to cater to everyone's whims and personal beliefs and not fail? By imposing rules that benefit only a minority opinion, are we alienating the overwhelming majority?
Now, I like rooting for the little guy... most of the time. It's in my nature, I suppose. Maybe that's because I see myself as one of the little guys. But when a little guy wins and it seems to infringe what I deem common sense, then I get a bit annoyed.
I'm just wondering where it ends and how far western civilization will take it. Are we doomed to fail, as my wife suggests? Will well-meaning laws passed by government become too unwieldy to enforce?
I don't know the answer. But I don't see how we can accomplish any real good or make any progress by being ultra-sensitive about every issue, worrying about offending someone or not offending them. I simply think we're heading down the wrong path, and I'm inclined to believe my wife that we'll fail if we continue this way. But I'm hoping we don't.
End of whinge.
EDIT: Just to be clear: I am not referring to basic human rights or even highly controversial subjects like abortion in the above. To be more clear, I meant it as an address toward things like: laws requiring things to be written in several languages or even futher out there on the lunacy scale, idiots spilling very hot coffee or chili into their laps while driving and suing for some kind of compensation. But primarily I'm speaking about governments trying to do to much to satisfy everyone...
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited January 31, 2005).]
You see, the thing about history is that we will continue to repeat it unless we learn from it. A complacent people fails to learn the lessons of their ancestors, therefore they allow, nay drive forward, the repetition of history's cycle of the rise and fall of empires.
Read "The Law" by Fredric Bastiat. It's public domain and available online.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited January 31, 2005).]
What killed it was what Dakota mentioned: complacency. Bread and circuses and orgies and the vomitorium after and no one really caring who was in charge as long as the distractions kept coming.
On the other hand, I agree with you. There has to be some commonality among the groups or there's no cohesion; the nation falls apart. Very few people in America really think of themselves as American now. Heck, very few people remember they have neighbors now. I don't. I see people go in and out of doors and sometimes we say hello, but I've only gotten to know one other couple in my neighborhood.
This of course, goes right back to complacency. As long as I've got my computer, some food and the bills paid, I don't care about the rest of the world outside.
Well, except for Hatrack and its inhabitants. I like Hatrack.
) but one could argue that law and culture are inextricable. The overriding culture creates the laws based upon their beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. So, by imposing their law on to cultures that were not Roman, could also be seen as imposing their very culture as well.
Is that too circular?
Anyway, now I really want to read this book. C'mon and hurry up, Holiday!
The question was, if a person moves to a country, does a person shed all parts of their culture that contradict their new location's laws? And if so, isn't that arrogant of the new country to demand it?
I've forgotten how the case turned out. I think the court decided that since they were in America and planned on residing here permanently, American law took effect, but I don't trust my memory.
The question, as you just proved, still remains.
Edited to add that anyone can quote me whenever they like.
[This message has been edited by Keeley (edited January 31, 2005).]
By making the choice to emmigrate you are making the choice to live by a different set of laws. I should know, I have lived in many different countries.
quote:
I think the court decided that since they were in America and planned on residing here permanently, American law took effect, but I don't trust my memory.
I should bloody well hope so!
But of all the gall, to move to a new country and assume that they should live by the law of the country you chose to leave behind. If you want to do that, bring an army and make it a conquest. But if you didn't bother to call on the only right of appeal written in natural law, don't cry about the laws being unfair compared to where you used to live.
I'm in the "prosperity, complacency, ignorance/incompetence" camp of what makes civilizations turn over. I'm also in the "watered with the blood of patriots", but I don't apply that to "the tree of liberty" so much as to any enduring culture. People have to be willing to die for their way of life, whatever it is, or that way of life will perish. But a people that has too long led a comfortable way of life will not be willing to die for it.
Not going to lose any sleep over it. Not as long as I have my spell cheque.
[This message has been edited by Rocklover (edited February 01, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Rocklover (edited February 01, 2005).]
That one's pretty easy to remember.
Paper and stationery both have 'er' in them.
I'm not stranger to saying, agreeing to, and doing dumb things. It's sort of my forté. Open mouth, insert foot. I don't know how it happens, it just does. Probably bad karma.
Case in point: This guy I "know" from a different web forum says his book is being published. I'm excited for him and I say, "Yeah, as soon as that's available on amazon.co.uk, I'll buy a copy." I simply wanted to support his authorship by buying a book. Books are cheap... even if I didn't like it, I wouldn't be out very much.
So, the book eventually makes it to amazon and it's expensive... something like £50. Wow! So, I email the guy and ask what gives.
He doesn't know. He tells me that if I would like, I can just pay costs and shipping, and he'll post out a copy to me posthaste. Well there's that whole mailing things from the US to the UK to consider. Shipping turns out to be around $8.00 US, or £4.00 UK. Costs for the book also turn out to be not so cheap at $15.00 dollars. But, hey it's a hard cover, I can deal with that. I'm supporting my buddy, right? Right? It's only $23.00 total, and that's just only £11.50-ish UK money. Since a pound spends like a dollar, it doesn't seem like that bad of a deal.
The book arrives in the post. It's not a hard-cover. It's a tradeback (I think that's what they call them, or something similar).
Okay, I think. Well, it got published, it must be good, I say to my wife. She nods approvingly. It's her online friend too.
First page of book. Eh...er... maybe it'll get better.
First chapter finished... 3 typos found, bad grammar at times, nothing is particularly moving me. Character descriptions are solely one's hair and eye color. Not very impressed with this at all.
I put the book down and have a quick think. Is this self-published? I come up with at last. I look at the publisher. "Inkwater Press" and there's a web address, too.
Hot diggity, I'll check out that site and see who they are.
Suspicion confirmed. The book is a vanity publishing. I've been had. Really had. But I haven't sent out the money yet.
I have two choices: Send the book back and come up with a lame excuse or the truth. Or, pay up the money and take it like the chump I realize that I now am.
I choose option 2. (avoid unnecessary conflict whenever possible -- rule #43 in the HSO survival guide.) I send the money with a short note thanking my "buddy" for the book. I make no comments about its contents.
Heads up to all you hatrackers: If I've offended you and you feel the need to get even, then go off and publish something via a vanity publisher and tell me you're book is being published. Make sure it is deliberately written poorly (many of you write far too well to ever need a vanity publisher).
I'll fall for it. Chump, it seems, is my new middle name. So go ahead. Get even.
Bah.
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited February 16, 2005).]
BTW, I have never seen anything that you wrote on Hatrack tha I considered offensive. But then, maybe that's just me.
quote:
BTW, I have never seen anything that you wrote on Hatrack tha I considered offensive. But then, maybe that's just me.
Neither have I. So, it's not just you.
Christine: I know and thank you, but we've effectively sorted out any differences and moved well enough beyond them that offering proof wouldn't be required. I know your novel will be a legit one... no worries.
***
By the way, I realize that I may have inadvertently summoned the wrong pity train. I'm not so worried about who I've offended -- I've done it and hopefully apologized properly. More to the point, I would like to express my desire for everyone to have a free giggle at my expense -- and to avoid being suckered into doing something before checking out the facts. That's my point.
(You said we could )
***
It's too bad this "friend" couldn't have been up-front that the book was a self-published venture.
quote:
...the law of averages states it must happen at some point.
HSO, I find this to be offensive. I'm not sure why I find it offensive, but I find it offensive.
Defend your position, please, or I will be even more offended.
Offendedly yours,
mikemunsil
I was shocked. Everything that could be wrong with a book was wrong with it, from published format to melodramatic story, from horrendous grammar to the most unbelievable dialogue. I confess I never finished it. According to the back cover, the author has self-published other books as well.
I've been debating about writing to him to say how bad the book really is -- I mean, this guy is spending good money on these books and he did ask for comments -- but then, according to the introduction, he's living his dream. Maybe it'd be cruel to give him a reality check.
But that book sure gave me a negative view of self-published books.
I will say "thank you" though, HSO and Kolona. Because of your posts, I'm going to think twice before buying someone's book... unless of course I already recognize the publisher/imprint.
Mike: "Offendedly"...? good word. Thanks for being offended. Now that the offended bit is out of the way, I can relax.
Goatboy: sorry that I've slighted you. I hope that will suffice as a substitute for offending you.
Kolona: Eek. Ethical dilemma. I think the person deserves the truth. But who am I to say that? I didn't do it. I didn't lie, either. I simply didn't comment.
On a separate yet related note, my wife has read more of this guy's book than I managed and said that if you can past the writing, the story idea is fairly decent. But good ideas with bad writing simply aren't good stories. I've learned this enough times with my own stories to know this is true.