1. Those stupid stories that list six things about this or ten things about that. When did this become a preferred journalistic form?
2. A copy editor who used the word 'medias' in a headline. Media is plural on its own and doesn't need an 's' on the end. [The singular is 'medium.']
3. This bogus search for editorial input from readers. Is there anyone so naïve as to believe that the patsies chosen will have any genuine say in the paper's content?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
1. When the untrained took over.
2. Yes.
3. If they are going to email a dilemma to all the participants and then wait for a concensus of answers, I can see this being one of the more efficient exercises in futility I beleive I've ever seen.
Ditto on the polls, Furry One.
You're saying that you think their asking for online input from readers will not reflect a true cross section of what is submitted to them? Geez, next you'll be saying that they print only the letters to the editor that are agreeable or at the least, kind to him.
And again Monday, "10 Things to Know about Black History in the Crossroads." How long can this go on?
Maybe they watch too much Letterman who has the "ten" lists?
Post a Comment