More bad English

Clark1961

Clark1961

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
17,737
Display Name
Display name:
Sometimes, even with proper punctuation a sentence can be interpreted multiple ways.

In those cases, you have to engage your brain and interpret the ambiguity appropriately. Sometimes, like in this case, it is obvious.
 
Jim_R said:
Sometimes, even with proper punctuation a sentence can be interpreted multiple ways.

In those cases, you have to engage your brain and interpret the ambiguity appropriately. Sometimes, like in this case, it is obvious.
Click to expand...

It may be obvious to you but that doesn't excuse the poor grammar and poor editing.
 
I'm a compulsive editor, but I'm not so sure that the lack of a comma in that sentence is a no-no.

Not quite the same thing as:

"A flight returned to Denver International Airport Monday morning, after takeoff because of mechanical issues."
 
Skylane81E said:
Let's eat grandma!

Let's eat, grandma!

Punctuation saves lives
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a punctuation problem. The words "after takeoff" are not needed, it's understood the airplane can only return after takeoff.

Well, it should be understood.
 
rottydaddy said:
I'm a compulsive editor, but I'm not so sure that the lack of a comma in that sentence is a no-no.

Not quite the same thing as:

"A flight returned to Denver International Airport Monday morning, after takeoff because of mechanical issues."
Click to expand...

I was speaking to the editor of or local paper the other day. The biggest problem he is facing is that people have learned they can get their news content for free off the internet. And advertisers feel their advertising should be cheaper on-line than in print. This causes a revenue problem that prohibits hiring or keeping the good (expensive) staff.

He acknowledged that the business model needs to change if "news" organizations are ever going to retain their place as respected journalists and investigative reporters. Everyone that reads "free" on line news papers is a contributor to this situation. I do read a lot of free stuff, but I pay an extra couple of bucks to two local papers with whom I have a 7-day delivery subscription so I can get their full on line content.
 
JOhnH said:
I was speaking to the editor of or local paper the other day. The biggest problem he is facing is that people have learned they can get their news content for free off the internet. And advertisers feel their advertising should be cheaper on-line than in print. This causes a revenue problem that prohibits hiring or keeping the good (expensive) staff.

He acknowledged that the business model needs to change if "news" organizations are ever going to retain their place as respected journalists and investigative reporters. Everyone that reads "free" on line news papers is a contributor to this situation. I do read a lot of free stuff, but I pay an extra couple of bucks to two local papers with whom I have a 7-day delivery subscription so I can get their full on line content.
Click to expand...

They cannot retain what they do not possess.
 
roncachamp said:
I'm not certain that would have made the statement accurate.
Click to expand...

I think it would. I remember a time when journalists were journalists.
They were respected and they had standards.
I remember when journalists had ethics and integrity and were not afraid to report an unpopular truth. And I remember when mistakes were retracted publicly and not in tiny print on page 16f.
And I remember when journalists used good grammar, could spell and could deliver a concept in a few lines at the beginning of an article.

I haven't seen any of that in at least 15 years. Maybe 20 or 30 years.
 
I just liked the title of the thread: More bad English.

So, I clicked on it expecting to discover what nefarious activity those Britons were up to this time. Imagine my surprise to learn that the language has been 'bad'. Also that it was 'more bad' which would indicate that there is a preposition of badness previously. I couldn't find the previous 'bad English'. My bad... :lol:
 
JOhnH said:
I think it would. I remember a time when journalists were journalists.
They were respected and they had standards.
I remember when journalists had ethics and integrity and were not afraid to report an unpopular truth. And I remember when mistakes were retracted publicly and not in tiny print on page 16f.
And I remember when journalists used good grammar, could spell and could deliver a concept in a few lines at the beginning of an article.

I haven't seen any of that in at least 15 years. Maybe 20 or 30 years.
Click to expand...

Are you assuming all unpopular truths were reported?
 
JOhnH said:
I think it would. I remember a time when journalists were journalists.
They were respected and they had standards.
I remember when journalists had ethics and integrity and were not afraid to report an unpopular truth. And I remember when mistakes were retracted publicly and not in tiny print on page 16f.
And I remember when journalists used good grammar, could spell and could deliver a concept in a few lines at the beginning of an article.

I haven't seen any of that in at least 15 years. Maybe 20 or 30 years.
Click to expand...
Rose-colored glasses. Journalism has always had its seamy side. Remember "yellow journalism"?

Yellow journalism, in short, is biased opinion masquerading as objective fact. Moreover, the practice of yellow journalism involved sensationalism, distorted stories, and misleading images for the sole purpose of boosting newspaper sales and exciting public opinion. It was particularly indicative of two papers founded and popularized in the late 19th century- The New York World, run by Joseph Pulitzer and The New York Journal, run by William Randolph Hearst.

It all started, some historians believe, with the onset of the rapid industrialization that was happening all around the world. The Industrial Revolution eventually affected the newspaper industry, allowing newspapers access to machines that could easily print thousands of papers in a single night. This is believed to have brought into play one of the most important characteristics of yellow journalism - the endless drive for circulation. And unfortunately, the publisher's greed was very often put before ethics.
Click to expand...

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/spanamer/yellow.htm
 
roncachamp said:
Are you assuming all unpopular truths were reported?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's right. I obviously meant that in the past ALL journalists were of equal excellence. None of them EVER made a mistake and none of them EVER declined to report anything controversial.

There. Does that make you happy now?
 
JOhnH said:
I think it would. I remember a time when journalists were journalists.
They were respected and they had standards. ...

I haven't seen any of that in at least 15 years. Maybe 20 or 30 years.
Click to expand...


Must be a lot older than me, cause I don't remember any of that within the past 40 years :no:
 
docmirror said:
I just liked the title of the thread: More bad English.

So, I clicked on it expecting to discover what nefarious activity those Britons were up to this time. Imagine my surprise to learn that the language has been 'bad'. Also that it was 'more bad' which would indicate that there is a preposition of badness previously. I couldn't find the previous 'bad English'. My bad... :lol:
Click to expand...

But if the title was "More bad American-English", then some would complain about the redundancy. :-)
 
I'd be happy if more of today's "journalists" merely got most of their facts straight. If they were able to express those facts using proper English, that would be even better. The ability to do so calmly and objectively, neither packaging their stories as political propaganda nor sensationalizing them to drive ratings...

Nah, never mind. That would be unrealistic.

-Rich
 
JOhnH said:
Yeah, that's right. I obviously meant that in the past ALL journalists were of equal excellence. None of them EVER made a mistake and none of them EVER declined to report anything controversial.

There. Does that make you happy now?
Click to expand...

Your naivete does not affect my mood in any way.
 
rottydaddy said:
I'm a compulsive editor, but I'm not so sure that the lack of a comma in that sentence is a no-no.

Not quite the same thing as:

"A flight returned to Denver International Airport Monday morning, after takeoff because of mechanical issues."
Click to expand...

Bingo! And anyone who's enjoying this thread would surely be interested in reading a book called "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation."
 
roncachamp said:
I don't think it's a punctuation problem. The words "after takeoff" are not needed, it's understood the airplane can only return after takeoff.

Well, it should be understood.
Click to expand...

If they had written "shortly after takeoff," then it would have served a purpose.
 
Eagle I said:
Or just read many of the daily posts here on PoA.:D OK, I guess they can be excused because they're not supposed to be professional grammarians.
Click to expand...

Who "they"? The posts or the posters?

:-)
 
My favorite tweet this week: There's a certain satisfaction knowing that somewhere at some time a Grammar Nazi ordered a "Jack Daniels" or "Jameson's".
 
While most of the world seems to be in a balls-to-the-wall race to the bottom, fairness compels me to commend the Dallas Morning News for generally excellent accuracy and style. :yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top