You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Short Attention Span Theater-
New York Times editing cuts mean doing more with less. Will credibility suffer?
2017-07-07
No. And after reading this article, not for the reason you imagine, either. The last thing a fish discovers is water.
[Poynter.org] The internet went nuts Wednesday when President Trump tweeted an unfinished, unpunctuated thought with a mysteriously misspelled word -- "Despite the constant negative press covfefe" -- leaving the world bewildered over his meaning.

Trump’s Twitter feed and official White House statements are notorious for such typos -- misspelling "attaker," asking "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones," promoting "lasting peach" in the Middle East -- glaring errors that raise broader questions about the reliability of his message and underscore the importance of an extra set of eyes on anyone’s prose.
Attaking speling and grammer is the last refuge of these scoundrels.
Posted by:gorb

#8  Crowd source editing and fact checking, like Wiki.


Already done -- that's what the letters to the editor section is for.
Posted by: trailing wife   2017-07-07 13:16  

#7  2*0=0
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-07-07 10:28  

#6  Crowd source editing and fact checking, like Wiki. (do I need to put a /sarc on that?)

It depends. Will Besoeker be reading your comment? ;-)
Posted by: gorb   2017-07-07 08:29  

#5  Journalists are supposed to report the news fairly and accurately, not to make stuff up to cause people to do things they normally wouldn't.

“You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” – William Randolph Hearst, January 25, 1898

Don't confuse a brief infection of 'integrity' for the normal and much longer pathology of 'journalism'. It's always been this way. They originated as political broadsheets. It was when it was discovered they could actually make money as an advertizing instrument as well, that some of the partisan fever subsided. Now that advertizing is down, the fever is back up.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-07-07 07:41  

#4  Crowd source editing and fact checking, like Wiki. (do I need to put a /sarc on that?)
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-07-07 07:35  

#3  Wait... they still have credibility?

According to whom? Their fucking mothers?!?!?!
Posted by: DarthVader   2017-07-07 00:16  

#2  I blame it on the spell checker.
Posted by: Seeking cure for ignorance   2017-07-07 00:14  

#1  Is this from the Onion?
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2017-07-07 00:12  

00:00