<< PLAUSIBLE POWERGEL ~ MAIN ~ WRITE ON, MAHMOUD >>
AND THE MOHAMED ATTA PRIZE GOES TO ...
In a staff memo celebrating a recent media award, Time editor-in-chief John Huey singled out for praise departing managing editor Jim Kelly:
IT IS A FITTING TRIBUTE TO A MAN WHO WAS SITTING IN THE PILOT’S SEAT AT TIME ON THE MORNING OF 9/11/01, AND HASN’T MADE A MISSTEP SINCE.
Unlike, say, his editor-in-chief. Huey has obviously studied at New York’s famed Sulzberger Tin-Eared Metaphor Academy.
#2
“its not it’s—how sophomoric of me.”
Couldn’t agree more - I get really pissed off when the grammar of the message is not correct - so what other basics have been misunderstood? Mr Apostrophe should be easily mastered.
Funnily enough, when you look at my quote from your message without your italics, it doesn’t look at all correct. Is the following right, perhaps? “It’s not ‘it’s’, it’s ‘its’”.
:-)
You bet, you bet. Bad apostrophication, as a vehicle for pluralizing acronyms, for example. I become murderous and need to go to my quiet place. But nothing irrationally enrages me like “misused” quotation marks.
Posted by crittenden on 2006 05 11 at 08:21 AM • permalinkI do read Time Magazine now and then. It’s donated to the reading stack in the men’s john at work, so occasionally I get the urge to open the newsrag.
Thing is, Time looks like a rag. The regular content, op-ed columns and such, are so simply written. There’s a lot of effort towards graphics, far more than what I recall Time had, say, 10 years ago. I suppose the pictures complement the written text, a smart move given there isn’t much written. The articles tend to be on a somewhat higher level, but it seems to me that they aren’t the quality I remember Time used to have. Maybe I’ve just become jaded in this age of information.
But even the paper Time is printed on looks, well, cheap. I presume that was a cost cutting measure, reasonable for a weekly publication, but going from the glossy paper to near National Enquirer quality did not add to the air of a major publication.
I am not impressed.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 05 11 at 08:31 AM • permalinkCan someone so clueless, so insular, so absolutely walled off from what is going on around him, what happened even in his own city actually strike a pose as a credible observer and reporter of world events?
Of course, this is not a new phenomenon at Time… as far back as the 30’s the editorial staff there was referred to by its own reporters as ‘the Brahmins’ — pompous, sedentary ‘authorities’ on high who would receive the reports from their journalists in the field of the world’s steady march towards war and tyranny and then would arrogantly wire back and tell the men on the scene what they were really seeing…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 05 11 at 09:53 AM • permalinkThat’s almost as good as Jonathan Klein bragging about CNN “flooding the zone” with tsunami coverage.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2006 05 11 at 10:03 AM • permalinkCan he see himself being appointed to head the Helen Keller Foundation, next, or would that be unheard of?
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 05 11 at 10:33 AM • permalinkIs this anything like Ted Kennedy naming his dog “Splash”?
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 05 11 at 04:22 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Now this is classic:
Apparently…
For my money, Michael Totten has more investigative resources in his little finger than Time has in it’s “giant apparatus” (think dual pronged, three AAA batteries, K-Y, buns up and squealing).