Author Topic: I hate journalistic writing (Read 95261 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #25 on:** September 18, 2006, 08:48:03 AM »

I've never understood the rationale behind having the copy editor write the headline instead of the writer. Any idea why that's the way it is, Farmgirl?

Farmgirl · « **Reply #26 on:** September 18, 2006, 08:56:40 AM »

Mainly because the writer has absolutely no idea where, or sometimes even when, the piece is going to run (front page, inside page, side box, etc.) They have no idea if it is going to go one column, two columns, three columns, etc. All those things affect what kind of head and font size used. And for some reason, newspapers decide those can be done by the layout people/copy editors at the end of production - who rarely really read a story with the intent of paying attention to what it actually SAYS.

(assembly-line mentality)

FG

Jonathon · « **Reply #27 on:** September 18, 2006, 09:06:53 AM »

I guess that makes sense from a production point of view, even if it does lead to some screwy headlines.

Jonathon · « **Reply #28 on:** September 18, 2006, 02:57:39 PM »

Wow. Talk about an ungrammatical headline.

Jonathon · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:38:43 AM »

Ugh. This article talks about Neil Armstrong's allegedly flubbed "one small step for man" line and how software may have discovered the missing "a." Whether or not this is the case, the article gets it pretty wrong: it's not an issue of drama or grammatical correctness—"one small step for man" is perfectly grammatically correct. However, it doesn't mean the same thing as "one small step for a man." Stupid AP story.

Porter · « **Reply #30 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:40:42 AM »

If he's talking about one small step for an individual, then the quote is incorrect. It's only correct if he's talking about mankind. Which makes the whole quote meaningless.

Jonathon · « **Reply #31 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:47:14 AM »

But it's not grammatically incorrect.

Porter · « **Reply #32 on:** October 02, 2006, 09:53:35 AM »

Meh. I think you'r nitpicking. He tried to say one thing, and either he said wrong or it was heard wrong. This incorrect sentence, by sheer accident, coincides with a gramatically correct sentence which means something else.

Jonathon · « **Reply #33 on:** October 02, 2006, 10:38:10 AM »

Just because I'm nitpicking doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Porter · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2006, 10:39:14 AM »

In this case, the difference between you being right and being wrong is, IMO, unimportant.

Which is why I'm arguing it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2006, 10:48:46 AM »

Most newspaper articles get things wrong when talking about language and linguistics (among many other subjects). I don't think that's unimportant.

Porter · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2006, 10:59:43 AM »

I'm not convinced that it's not a grammatical mistake.

pooka · « **Reply #37 on:** October 02, 2006, 12:56:34 PM »

man = mankind
It's well established in Biblical English.

I liked the final sentence, that the right word is "persuasive". That's all a linguistic analysis can ever strive to be.

Porter · « **Reply #38 on:** October 02, 2006, 08:17:53 PM »

If I'm talking about my little girl and spell it "grill", it's still a spelling error even though "grill" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #39 on:** October 02, 2006, 08:59:27 PM »

:looks up "cromulent":

Jonathon · « **Reply #40 on:** October 03, 2006, 03:39:45 PM »

Quote

I'm not convinced that it's not a grammatical mistake.

The thing is that the line was something he came up with once they'd landed. In other words, he was reciting a line, not generating spontaneous speech. If an actor forgets a word, it's an error in memory, not in grammar. Also, Armstrong has apparently admitted that he sometimes drops syllables in speech, which means it's an error in speech production, not in grammar. Either way, it's not a grammatical error.

What bugged me about the article, though, was the way they portrayed the error. They said that "one small step for a man" is "more dramatic and grammatically correct." I don't see how drama factors in at all, and if the "one small step for man" version is incorrect, then it's not an issue of one version being more correct. Correctness in this instance would be a binary thing, but they seem to be portraying one as proper an the other as improper. I don't think that accurately describes the situation.

Edit: On a related note, Language Log has done a couple of interesting posts on the subject. Far more interesting than the virtually content-free CNN article I linked to, anyway.

Porter · « **Reply #41 on:** October 03, 2006, 03:48:15 PM »

Quote

If an actor forgets a word, it's an error in memory, not in grammar.

"To be or not to be, that the question." is a grammatically incorrect sentence, no matter how the verb got dropped.

Quote

Also, Armstrong has apparently admitted that he sometimes drops syllables in speech, which means it's an error in speech production, not in grammar.

That's a good point.

Although, I was talking about the quote as is commonly known.

Jonathon · « **Reply #42 on:** October 03, 2006, 04:01:16 PM »

Quote

Although, I was talking about the quote as is commonly known.

So was I.

In other words, I don't know what you mean by that.

pooka · « **Reply #43 on:** October 03, 2006, 04:05:10 PM »

To be or not to be, that is a question.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #44 on:** October 03, 2006, 06:02:54 PM »

Indeed.

AFR · « **Reply #45 on:** October 03, 2006, 10:42:53 PM »

You got to admit, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" is a better parallelism.

Porter · « **Reply #46 on:** October 04, 2006, 05:52:01 AM »

Um, I don't know what you mean. The sentence, as you quoted it, is just plain confusing. What does it mean? There's more than one way to parse it.

AFR · « **Reply #47 on:** October 04, 2006, 08:57:44 AM »

The actual structures are parallel. Add an "a" and they aren't as parallel. One reason it's so memorable is that it's so parallel.

Porter · « **Reply #48 on:** October 04, 2006, 09:05:18 AM »

But by making the structures parallel, you create ambiguity.

pooka · « **Reply #49 on:** October 04, 2006, 10:04:44 AM »

Parallelism would have been "One small step for Neil, on giant leap for mankind."