Author Topic: I hate journalistic writing (Read 95343 times)

rivka · « **Reply #100 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:31:02 AM »

There are so many things wrong with that letter, it makes my head hurt.

Jonathon · « **Reply #101 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:34:10 AM »

Oh, my head. >.<

I won't even mention the fact that this piece comes from the Ozark County Times. Or that the author invokes a huge freaking Godwin's Law straw man. Or that she's a complete and utter idiot.

Porter · « **Reply #102 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:34:23 AM »

That was a letter? I missed that. I guess I shouldn't have been mocking journalists because of it. :oops:

Choice quote:

Quote

The "c" in Einstein's formula E=mc2 stands for the speed of light, which Einstein said is a constant (approximately 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum). That doesn't make sense.

Porter · « **Reply #103 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:35:39 AM »

Quote

I won't even mention the fact that this piece comes from the Ozark County Times. Or that the author invokes a huge freaking Godwin's Law straw man. Or that she's a complete and utter idiot.

You won't?

Jonathon · « **Reply #104 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:36:21 AM »

I didn't notice that, either. I does indeed say "letters" at the front of the headline. That makes me feel (very) slightly better.

Jonathon · « **Reply #105 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:37:51 AM »

This was also pretty good:

Quote

A few years ago, PBS reported that two Germany scientists had altered the speed of light in a laboratory. The scientific community dismissed their work as bad science: it didn't fit Einstein's equation.

I can alter the speed of light right here in my cubicle.

*holds a clear plastic bottle in front of a light source*

Behold! I have slowed and bent actual rays of light!

Jonathon · « **Reply #106 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:38:54 AM »

Quote

Quote
I won't even mention the fact that this piece comes from the Ozark County Times. Or that the author invokes a huge freaking Godwin's Law straw man. Or that she's a complete and utter idiot.
You won't?

No, I won't. It just wouldn't be prudent to make jokes about ignorant hillbillies who obviously have no idea how to check their facts or construct a well-reasoned argument.

rivka · « **Reply #107 on:** August 08, 2007, 08:51:09 AM »

. . . or the difference between a medium and a vacuum.

Porter · « **Reply #108 on:** August 08, 2007, 09:00:28 AM »

...or the difference between reviewing scientific experiments and seeing an article or PBS special about it.

Brinestone · « **Reply #109 on:** August 22, 2007, 08:55:57 AM »

Here's a doozy of a headline:

Work-Family Conflict Dogs Air Force Women After Deployment

rivka · « **Reply #110 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:09:39 AM »

Jonathon · « **Reply #111 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:13:58 AM »

Wow. That took me two or three readings to parse.

Who else wondered what work-family conflict dogs were?

rivka · « **Reply #112 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:15:46 AM »

Not me. My brain took one look at that headline and flatly refused to make any attempt whatsoever at decoding.

Brinestone · « **Reply #113 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:22:18 AM »

And when I hit "air force," I got completely lost because I'd thought this headline was about family, work, and/or dogs.

Jonathon · « **Reply #114 on:** August 22, 2007, 09:32:10 AM »

For a second I thought that two headlines (or maybe more) had been spliced together by accident.

By the way, it seems that headline writers love the verb "dog." This is not the first time I've seen it in a cluttered headline. Presumably they like it because it saves space.

Jonathon · « **Reply #115 on:** August 22, 2007, 01:17:44 PM »

This was just posted on Language Log. Sadly, I don't know if even an audio version could've saved this headline.

rivka · « **Reply #116 on:** August 22, 2007, 01:42:18 PM »

Quote

This was just posted on Language Log. Sadly, I don't know if even an audio version could've saved this headline.

I agree. I only hear the difference in the two sound files' emphases when I listen very closely.

Porter · « **Reply #117 on:** August 22, 2007, 01:58:06 PM »

The sound files sound very different to me. It is easy to tell what the two mean.

Jonathon · « **Reply #118 on:** August 22, 2007, 02:11:29 PM »

Same here.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #119 on:** August 22, 2007, 04:26:59 PM »

I love journalistic writing. It is such a rich source of material.

dkw · « **Reply #120 on:** August 23, 2007, 08:46:38 AM »

If a certain organization's newsletter is a group effort and two members of the group consistently edit the phrase "the parish nurses will be giving hand massages" and "come get a hand massage" to "will be massaging hands" and "come have your hands massaged" and the rest of the group sees nothing wrong with the originals and keeps putting the announcements in phrased that way, do the two have overactive imaginations, or are the rest of the group oblivious? </runon sentence>

Porter · « **Reply #121 on:** August 23, 2007, 08:53:57 AM »

I'm oblivious to the functional differences between the two phrasings. I'm guessing that there's a double entendre that I'm not seeing, but that's just because of the word "message".

Is the problem with the term "hand massage" referring to what you're giving the massage with, instead of to? If so, what else would somebody be giving a massage with?

Jonathon · « **Reply #122 on:** August 23, 2007, 08:55:32 AM »

I guess you can count me among the oblivious.

dkw · « **Reply #123 on:** August 23, 2007, 09:11:25 AM »

Interesting.

I tend to think that if even one person notices that something can be misinterpreted and there's an easy way to change it, it should be changed.

Porter · « **Reply #124 on:** August 23, 2007, 09:13:08 AM »

I think that anything can be misinterpreted, if you really want to.