And here’s another quick one.
Article page: C1 Article title: “If Rupert Murdoch Owned the Wall Street Journal…” Paragraph: 5
Most readers just write a letter the editor.
Correction:
Most readers just write a letter to the editor.
Oh, well.
Another Day, Another Error
The article is called “Rice and Syrian Discuss Borders at Iraq Meeting.” If that isn’t jingoistic enough, one of the subheads reads “She Tries to Confer With Iranian, Too.”
Try out the word “Italian” or “Frenchman” to see how stupid it sounds.
Already on high red alert, we drag our sorry asses down through paragraph 3, only to soon find:
But he [Foreign Minister Motaki of Iran] left the dinner, held by Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit of Egypt, before Ms. Rice arrived — and apparently before eating.
At the day’s lunch,…
All right. I don’t know what Motaki’s problem was — food poisoning? a leg injury from getting kicked under the table? hurt feelings? — but thank heavens Mr. Gheit was there to catch him and hold him up.
Wait. Did I miss something? Oh, my bad. He “held” him, not held him up. Much more loving. More caring. Either they’re fantastic old pals, or… perhaps something more, Governor McGreevey?
Touched, I can’t wait to get to the next paragraph. “At the day’s lunch…” begins the chunk. Whoa. Are we backtracking now? I remember learning in high school that one should never go back in time in a news article until one has thoroughly covered the current topic. Then the writer can go and fill in the history. But this feels like an amateurish movie effect–an on-screen ripple-dissolve as the main character caresses his own chin and looks at the ceiling in wonder, harp music playing…
It’s like the dot-dot-dot I just typed. Bad New York Times! I won’t blame authors Cooper and Slackman so much. I’ll blame their copy editor and their editor!
Daily NY Times Typo
Here’s a good one: in the lead article titled “Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit Schedule,” there’a nice fat one. We easily make it through the first two (2) paragraphs without a gaffe, but soon our luck runs out…
The veto added new punctuation to a major war powers clash between Democrats in Congress — buoyed what they regard as a mandate in last November’s elections and seeking to force an end to the fighting in Iraq — and the president working to defy what he regards as an incursion on his authority his authority as commander in chief.
Shouldn’t that be “buoyed bywhat they regard…?” That’s what happens when Sheryl and Jeff attempt a 60-word run-on sentence… trouble!
More NY Times Junk
Today’s front page has an eerie photograph of huge concrete towers atop sand dunes.
But read the caption: “A new vehicle barrier just north of San Luis Rio Colorado, Mexico.” Now if these are vehicle barriers, can’t a car just drive through what appear to be 20-foot wide gaps between the towers?
Of course not. Once again, we are misled by non-informative captions, and an article missing basic who-what-why facts. It’s a beautiful shot by award-winning photojournalist Ann Johansson, but it’s the paper’s fault for not documenting the documentation! If the gap is less than 5′-7″, the approximate width of a 2007 Mini Cooper — one of the smallest cars a poor Mexican emigrant would consider using to escape poverty and a lack of work — and certainly less than the 7′-2″ it would take to ram a Hummer H3 through, the space between the posts must be about 4′-6″. Which would indicate that their vertical height must be about 5′ or 6′. So a person standing in the picture would be about the height of the barrier.
And why do these striking objects march in alternating heights? Are there crews of American or Mexican workers who erect these things? Are they precast elements that are driven around on the backs of trucks? Do I really want all these facts? NO! It’s not the point of the article. I only want hard information if you put a giant 8 1/2″ x 5 1/2″ photograph right smack in the middle of page 1. Otherwise, don’t do it. Instead, use an image showing constructon workers building these things. Show some border patrol officials observing the work. A picture that tells the story, not art photography that I hope to see some day at an art gallery of Ann’s work! Sorry, Ann. It’s not you, it’s your disappointing employer.