Grammar/Vocabulary ??? - Page 7

andrew markworthy · 05-20-2008, 02:49 AM

Quote:

It's worth pointing out that newspapers have been fonts of atrocious English since before 1900.

True, but to some extent it depends upon the newspaper in question. E.g. here in the UK, the quality national papers generally have very high standards of English (The Times, The Telegraph and The Independent in particular). Even some of our down-market tabloids, although full of slang, are grammatically well-written. However, some of our local newspapers are the complete pits. I don't know how it is in the USA, but in the UK the local newspapers come out in the evenings. My parents took the local newspaper when I was a kid/young adult and if on any evening I found fewer than ten mistakes on the front page, I felt cheated.

Holadem · 05-20-2008, 07:51 AM

Thanks for weighing in Mike, I was starting to question my sanity.

--
H

Marianne · 05-20-2008, 10:48 AM

andrew, can you explain why you think the UK version is correct.

UK

Northern Rock are broke

Northern Rock and Bear Stearns are broke

I think that the US version is correct because Northern Rock is singular.

US

Northern Rock is broke

Northern Rock and Bear Stearns are broke

andrew markworthy · 05-20-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

I think that the US version is correct because Northern Rock is singular.

You are absolutely correct. The Brit usage has come in over the past few years. I think it's meant to reinforce the idea that a group noun is in fact describing a large body of people and not a single anonymous entity. I don't think this is a valid reason for change, but I guess it's now pretty unstoppable.

But of course this is part of our ever-changing language. The same thing happened a few years ago with 'hopefully'. It literally means 'full of hope' and not 'it is to be hoped that'. Thus, 'hopefully, we travel on Thursday' means 'we will travel on Thursday, full of hope' and not 'we hope to travel on Thursday'. But the misuse got so prevalent that in the end I and the other pedants found ourselves employing the new usage along with everyone else. And hands up anyone who can remember 'incredible' or 'fantastic' having primarily negative meanings (in the same way that 'it's beyond belief' still has)? That shift in meaning principally happened in the nineteen-sixties.

Mike Frezon · 05-20-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holadem

Thanks for weighing in Mike, I was starting to question my sanity.

I wish I had weighed in on your question sooner.

And, anyway, it's not a bad thing if we all question our sanity now and again!

I was going to let your slap at the NY Post go by without a mention but when Andrew stood up for his national newspapers, it put me to mind of my constant defense of tabloid newspapers such as the Boston Herald, NY Post and NY Daily News. The level of writing is actually higher than most would understand--those who don't get past the front headlines. And, frankly, I think the headline writers for the tabloids are some of the most creative people around. What they do is an absolute talent. I marvel daily.

And I agree with Andrew whole-heartedly about the corresponding decrease in writing talent seen as the size of the newspaper and its market area get smaller. Same is true here (for obvious reasons) in the US.

My local daily, the Albany Times-Union (owned by Hearst) got caught with egg on its face the other day when it created a plural by adding an apostrophe and an "s."

Candidate's Paper Over Early Sign Flap

To his credit, their managing editor seized the opportunity to opine about how important it is for newspapers to admit mistakes and make corrections.

andrew markworthy · 05-20-2008, 12:48 PM

I once spotted a grammatical howler in a headline in one of our quality Brit newspapers - 'Why my group of public school friends are better'. Ironically, the article was about the [supposed] superiority of the author's private education [remember that 'public school' = expensive private education in the UK, for reasons we won't get sidetracked into].

Anyway, having an idle five minutes, I emailed the editor of the paper, pointing out not only the grammatical error but its most unfortunate juxtaposition with the story. I got a reply within an hour:

Thank you for your email. The headline was the responsibility of one of the sub editors. I have had him shot.

I feel we need more of this vigorous upholding of standards.

Mike Frezon · 05-20-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrew markworthy

I once spotted a grammatical howler in a headline in one of our quality Brit newspapers - 'Why my group of public school friends are better'. Ironically, the article was about the superiority of the author's private education [remember that 'public school' = expensive private education in the UK, for reasons we won't get sidetracked into].

Anyway, having an idle five minutes, I emailed the editor of the paper, pointing out not only the grammatical error but its most unfortunate juxtaposition with the story. I got a reply within an hour:

Thank you for your email. The headline was the responsibility of one of the sub editors. I have had him shot.

I feel we need more of this vigorous upholding of standards.

Great story.

to Andrew for pointing out the error (and irony) to the editor. And

to the editor for having a sense of humor and, yet, hopefully, taking the issue seriously.

Holadem · 05-20-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

I was going to let your slap at the NY Post go by without a mention but when Andrew stood up for his national newspapers, it put me to mind of my constant defense of tabloid newspapers such as the Boston Herald, NY Post and NY Daily News. The level of writing is actually higher than most would understand--those who don't get past the front headlines.

I read the NY Daily news every morning on the subway when I lived there, pretty much from cover to cover. At the time, it felt every bit of the "New York hometown newspaper", much more than the NYT did. Heck, it was even my main source for movie listings. After a sleepless night, I was out at dawn on Sept 12th 2001 looking for the News because I wanted to the familiar voice of my paper's take on the events (I still remember the front page: "WAR!"). Yeah, i am familiar with the Daily News

But I stopped reading the NY Daily News when (among other things) an article covering a demonstration qualified it as "disturbing". As in, "the disturbing demonstration was held at..." Again, not an editorial, commentary, or opinion piece, but a news article. I will not say which type of demonstration because that's irrelevant. It could be a march of Neo-Nazi cannibalistic pedophiles, the article reporting the event has no business qualifying anything as "disturbing".

(and I've read enough of the Post to know that is garbage, even compared to the News

)

--
H

andrew markworthy · 05-20-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

an article covering a demonstration qualified it as "disturbing". As in, "the disturbing demonstration was held at..." Again, not an editorial, commentary, or opinion piece, but a news article

FWIW, there is a large branch of Psychology concerned with how seemingly innocent descriptive words can seriously disort not only people's memories of events but also (far more seriously) their opinions. We'll veer into politics if we talk about this too much, but it has been argued that several general elections in the UK have been swayed by constant subtle sniping at whoever the editors dislike.

On the other hand, out and out propaganda rarely has the same effect, or may even backfire. For example, in the recent elections for the Mayor of London (in UK terms, the importance of this post is like mayor of several of your biggest cities rolled into one). One of our more left-wing papers took an ardent dislike to the right-wing candidate and did several pieces vehemently against him. The result was that the paper received letters and emails from readers saying that they would now vote for him out of bloody-mindedness because they disliked being preached at. And as the right-wing candidate won by a fairly narrow margin, who knows what a decisive effect this may have had?