I owe a lot to the Chattanooga Times. From the time I was a pre-teen, but already getting interested in ideas and philosophies and politics, I learned about dishonesty and bias in "news"papers.
The Times distorted, for example, a 1964 student mock election. It was a primary, with Democrats running against Democrats and Barry Goldwater standing tall against some piddly nobodies who should have been Democrats. (Hmmmm. Does anyone get the feeling I might have been partisan?)
Fulfilling expectations, the Democrat students voted pretty overwhelmingly for Lyndon Johnson and the Republicans, still a minority in those days, choosing Goldwater.
The Times, though, headlined, "Johnson Beats Goldwater."
I will remember till the day I die a front-page story headlined, "Goldwater Man Turns To Scranton."
Scranton was the then-governor of Pennsylvania, and about the 19th candidate the leftish Republicans threw across the path of Goldwater.
Probably very few people even remember his name today, and with good reason.
Anyway, the headline was a big chortle from the propagandists of the Times, but the story itself was a big yawn to anybody reading it. Essentially, a seventh vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers said Bill Scranton would be a good second choice, after Barry Goldwater!
Today we use the term "disconnect" to describe the relationship between the head and the story.
Those are the two I remember, but of course there were dozens, scores more examples of bias and/or dishonesty -- just as with the rest of the "news" media that year.
The Times, perhaps mostly or solely for its leftward slant, did something almost no other morning papers in the country did: Fell behind the Free Press, its afternoon competitor, in circulation.
When about seven years ago the two papers were merged into one by the new corporate owner, one exceptionally good thing -- or at least potentially exceptionally good thing -- was done: The editorial pages were continued as separate entities. The Times is, appropriately, on the left-hand page and the Free Press, appropriately, on the right.
The left columns tend to be hysterical anti-Bush diatribes, from the likes of the vulgar Molly Ivins and Ellen Goodman and the opaque E.J. Dionne, Jr., although there is occasionally Thomas Friedman or David Broder or, far too infrequently, the superlative William Raspberry.
The right columnists include the brilliant Walter Williams, but often the run-of-the-mill rightists with no new insights but just the usual cant such as Phyllis Schlafly and William Rusher.
Dr. Williams actually explains things, detailing ideas and underlying philosophies.
On Friday, 24 June 2005, the Times published a cartoon by Wright of the Palm Beach Post. In front of what seems to be a painting or poster of the Muppets is an obvious curmudgeon, identified by a lapel button saying "GOP" and muttering "Another liberal cabal."
Nowhere have I seen, in print or on the Internet or on television, nor have I heard, on radio or anywhere, ANYone saying the Muppets were "liberals."
It is a fact, though, the Muppets' creator, Jim Henson, who, about 1990, died rich because of the Muppets' popularity and clever capitalist merchandising, was indeed a leftist activist.
It was his leftist activism that first brought him to the attention of the WGBH TV station in Boston, and from there he branched out into Public Broadcasting System programming, and thence into the much better-paying commercial networks and, even better paying, motion pictures.
In Henson's generally charming and enjoyable first film, "The Muppet Movie" (1979), starting Kermit and Miss Piggy and all the rest, plus Orson Welles, Henson's leftism was splashed right in front of everybody, not even very subtly: The bad guy, played by Charles Durning, who wanted Kermit's legs for a line of food, very ostentatiously wore an American flag lapel pin.
So the Times cartoon is a silly straw-man effort at caricaturing Republicans and rightists (who these days do well enough, thank you, at caricaturing themselves), and is further demonstration the Times editorial page editors know not whereof they publish.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
More editorial overview, continued
It's really too bad the Chattanooga Times Free Press can't find an editor for its editorial pages, especially for its Sunday Perspective section, who is qualified to be an editor.
In the edition of Sunday, 26 June 2005, there is this item in the "Rant" department: "It appears that the only physician in Congress has put his foot in his mouth. I hope he chokes on it."
First, the "Rant" is one of the worst things in any "news"paper, but Chattanooga's reflects what is worst in town and in the whole Tri-State area.
It is anonymous garbage, which is bad enough, and should the opinion be moronic or a fact misstated, it gets printed anyway, as long as the "editor" of the section allows it in.
Second, Congress has, in fact, at least two medical doctors. One is Bill Frist, the lamentable U.S. Senator who is apparently planning to run for president in 2008.
Tennessee's record in presidential candidates is not very good, but is probably not much if any worse than any other state.
Most recent was the unlamented Albert Gore, Jr., who garnered more popular votes in the 2000 election but lost in the Electoral College.
In 1980, Howard Baker, Jr., ran in the Republican presidential primary, along with what seemed to be six or seven dozen others.
There have been other Tennesseans over the centuries, including one of the in many ways worst presidents, Andrew Jackson, and one of the best in at least one way, James K. Polk.
Polk seems to be the last and perhaps only president who kept all his campaign promises, which included getting the United States into a war with Mexico, settling the "54-40 or fight" situation, and serving only one term (a wonderful idea that should be imposed on all presidents).
Even Jackson had some stature, although his mistreatment of the so-called "Indians" was so shameful it is a disgrace he is given any admiration today.
Bill Frist is not a patch even on Jackson.
And he might be the only doctor in the Senate, but over in the House of Representatives is a man who might well be the sole surviving member of Congress who knows what's in the Constitution: Dr. Ron Paul of Texas.
Wait a minute -- there IS another doctor, an obstetrician, just elected last year from Oklahoma. He is Tom Coburn, and he was in the lower house first.
Ron Paul, however, is the kind of man who would not be mentioned on editorial pages. He makes too much sense; he wants the government to obey the Constitution; he believes in the sanctity of the individual.
Well, now we know there are at least THREE doctors in Congress, but Times Free Press editors are not as knowledgeable -- or as smart -- as we.
And we are also smarter than the author of the "rant," whose target most likely was Frist, meaning the ranter is one of the mean-spirited, nasty-mouthed local Democrats.
A county commissioner, Curtis Adams, recently switched parties, from Democrat to Republican. Hardly a letter or rant that resulted was anything but a mean-spirited attack, with no substance but a lot of vitriol.
Wouldn't a good opinion page editor have sought out some intelligent -- being, considering the quality of the local Democrat Party, a very relative term -- spokesman who could speak of substance, and not just make personal attacks?
Another rant is a good illustration of the general worthlessness of the feature: "Styles and Wolfe: Two individuals starving for ratings and votes, obviously in need of a real life. Move on to a topic of real importance."
Jeff Styles is the morning talk-show host on WGOW FM, 102.3 in Chattanooga. John Wolfe also hosts a talk program, paid for with his own money, and he has twice been a Democrat candidate for Congress.
Wolfe makes a similar mistake to the ranter, spewing personal assaults, although he usually does try to point out some evidence or alleged evidence as a basis for his attack and, as a talk-show host, is almost always polite and nearly always letting his caller speak.
Wolfe has been treated very shabbily by the "news"paper generally but he did get an endorsement in 2004 by the Times editorial page, which would no doubt endorse the proverbial yellow dog if said dog ran as a Democrat.
Styles, by the way, is a very knowledgeable talk-show host, able to converse on a surprisingly wide range of topics. He is much more intelligent and substantive than, for example, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes. He might not have the finesse of some national hosts, but I would choose him over any of them to listen to or to talk with.
And I'll bet he already knew there are at least three physicians in the U.S. Congress -- which needs at least that many, being a pretty sick institution.
In the edition of Sunday, 26 June 2005, there is this item in the "Rant" department: "It appears that the only physician in Congress has put his foot in his mouth. I hope he chokes on it."
First, the "Rant" is one of the worst things in any "news"paper, but Chattanooga's reflects what is worst in town and in the whole Tri-State area.
It is anonymous garbage, which is bad enough, and should the opinion be moronic or a fact misstated, it gets printed anyway, as long as the "editor" of the section allows it in.
Second, Congress has, in fact, at least two medical doctors. One is Bill Frist, the lamentable U.S. Senator who is apparently planning to run for president in 2008.
Tennessee's record in presidential candidates is not very good, but is probably not much if any worse than any other state.
Most recent was the unlamented Albert Gore, Jr., who garnered more popular votes in the 2000 election but lost in the Electoral College.
In 1980, Howard Baker, Jr., ran in the Republican presidential primary, along with what seemed to be six or seven dozen others.
There have been other Tennesseans over the centuries, including one of the in many ways worst presidents, Andrew Jackson, and one of the best in at least one way, James K. Polk.
Polk seems to be the last and perhaps only president who kept all his campaign promises, which included getting the United States into a war with Mexico, settling the "54-40 or fight" situation, and serving only one term (a wonderful idea that should be imposed on all presidents).
Even Jackson had some stature, although his mistreatment of the so-called "Indians" was so shameful it is a disgrace he is given any admiration today.
Bill Frist is not a patch even on Jackson.
And he might be the only doctor in the Senate, but over in the House of Representatives is a man who might well be the sole surviving member of Congress who knows what's in the Constitution: Dr. Ron Paul of Texas.
Wait a minute -- there IS another doctor, an obstetrician, just elected last year from Oklahoma. He is Tom Coburn, and he was in the lower house first.
Ron Paul, however, is the kind of man who would not be mentioned on editorial pages. He makes too much sense; he wants the government to obey the Constitution; he believes in the sanctity of the individual.
Well, now we know there are at least THREE doctors in Congress, but Times Free Press editors are not as knowledgeable -- or as smart -- as we.
And we are also smarter than the author of the "rant," whose target most likely was Frist, meaning the ranter is one of the mean-spirited, nasty-mouthed local Democrats.
A county commissioner, Curtis Adams, recently switched parties, from Democrat to Republican. Hardly a letter or rant that resulted was anything but a mean-spirited attack, with no substance but a lot of vitriol.
Wouldn't a good opinion page editor have sought out some intelligent -- being, considering the quality of the local Democrat Party, a very relative term -- spokesman who could speak of substance, and not just make personal attacks?
Another rant is a good illustration of the general worthlessness of the feature: "Styles and Wolfe: Two individuals starving for ratings and votes, obviously in need of a real life. Move on to a topic of real importance."
Jeff Styles is the morning talk-show host on WGOW FM, 102.3 in Chattanooga. John Wolfe also hosts a talk program, paid for with his own money, and he has twice been a Democrat candidate for Congress.
Wolfe makes a similar mistake to the ranter, spewing personal assaults, although he usually does try to point out some evidence or alleged evidence as a basis for his attack and, as a talk-show host, is almost always polite and nearly always letting his caller speak.
Wolfe has been treated very shabbily by the "news"paper generally but he did get an endorsement in 2004 by the Times editorial page, which would no doubt endorse the proverbial yellow dog if said dog ran as a Democrat.
Styles, by the way, is a very knowledgeable talk-show host, able to converse on a surprisingly wide range of topics. He is much more intelligent and substantive than, for example, Michael Savage or Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes. He might not have the finesse of some national hosts, but I would choose him over any of them to listen to or to talk with.
And I'll bet he already knew there are at least three physicians in the U.S. Congress -- which needs at least that many, being a pretty sick institution.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Editorial overview, continued
As previously mentioned, the Times Free Press, after the merger, continues to publish two editorial pages, The Times on the left side and the Free Press on the right side.
Times editorials tend to be long and boring, frequently pompous, almost never intendedly humorous, and nearly always very one-sided and supportive of more and bigger and more intrusive government.
On 14 June 2005, the editorial bemoaned "A threat to public broadcasting."
Naturally, expectedly, it groused about the new administration of Kenneth Tomlinson and fusses that now, though certainly not previously, so-called "public broadcasting" will be biased.
Its accompanying intellectual and fair-minded cartoon portrays opponents as hatchet-armed gorillas storming into the PBS office as a receptionist intercoms, "Mr. Moyers, some conservative gentlemen to see you -- something about balance and liberal bias."
Bosh! Of course there's no such thing a "liberal bias." No, sir.
On the Free Press side that day is a cartoon and editorial protesting, essentially, that claims of "War on Terror" torture are, at least, exaggerated. There is an editorial questioning the "global warming" hysteria ... well, hysteria in certain circles. Another asks "Why not insist on U.N. reform?"
The last editorial comments on "Another court stymies democracy," referring to a federal court overruling a Virginia law banning "the gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion," and containing this line: "That is a strange thing for a federal court to do since the Constitution leaves to the states the power to regulate those things not specifically delegated to the federal government's control."
That is a very interesting editorial comment, one we want to remember and one to which we will refer in the future.
Times editorials tend to be long and boring, frequently pompous, almost never intendedly humorous, and nearly always very one-sided and supportive of more and bigger and more intrusive government.
On 14 June 2005, the editorial bemoaned "A threat to public broadcasting."
Naturally, expectedly, it groused about the new administration of Kenneth Tomlinson and fusses that now, though certainly not previously, so-called "public broadcasting" will be biased.
Its accompanying intellectual and fair-minded cartoon portrays opponents as hatchet-armed gorillas storming into the PBS office as a receptionist intercoms, "Mr. Moyers, some conservative gentlemen to see you -- something about balance and liberal bias."
Bosh! Of course there's no such thing a "liberal bias." No, sir.
On the Free Press side that day is a cartoon and editorial protesting, essentially, that claims of "War on Terror" torture are, at least, exaggerated. There is an editorial questioning the "global warming" hysteria ... well, hysteria in certain circles. Another asks "Why not insist on U.N. reform?"
The last editorial comments on "Another court stymies democracy," referring to a federal court overruling a Virginia law banning "the gruesome procedure known as partial-birth abortion," and containing this line: "That is a strange thing for a federal court to do since the Constitution leaves to the states the power to regulate those things not specifically delegated to the federal government's control."
That is a very interesting editorial comment, one we want to remember and one to which we will refer in the future.
Diversity?
"Rate your school online" is the head on a syndicated article in the Times Free Press, Monday, 6 June 2005, page D-1.
First, to the eye, the second-person style of the head grates, and has always grated, on me, but I suppose that could be written off as personal. (Of course I don't; I find second-person writing in "news" papers to be very amateurish, for one thing.)
Second, the apparently intendedly breezy style of the article, by Theresa Walker of what used to be a much better paper, the Orange County Register, begins this way: "NGA wants teens to check out its Web site.
"No, that's not a new hip-hop group. That's the National Governors Association."
That group is "asking high school students to participate in an online survey that will give them firsthand (sic) information about the high school experience."
In the Times Free Press, the beginning of the article is accompanied by a photo with this cutline, or caption to civilians: "Angeline Grimsley, 18, and Nicole Weiner, 17, give their California school high marks for diversity."
Beside the jump, or continued, portion is another photo, this one of a young man.
Inexplicably, all three pictured are leaping into the air in the photos from Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Perhaps explicably, but not explained, all three are very white, blonde and blond, even.
So where is the "diversity" in the "news" story and photos?
First, to the eye, the second-person style of the head grates, and has always grated, on me, but I suppose that could be written off as personal. (Of course I don't; I find second-person writing in "news" papers to be very amateurish, for one thing.)
Second, the apparently intendedly breezy style of the article, by Theresa Walker of what used to be a much better paper, the Orange County Register, begins this way: "NGA wants teens to check out its Web site.
"No, that's not a new hip-hop group. That's the National Governors Association."
That group is "asking high school students to participate in an online survey that will give them firsthand (sic) information about the high school experience."
In the Times Free Press, the beginning of the article is accompanied by a photo with this cutline, or caption to civilians: "Angeline Grimsley, 18, and Nicole Weiner, 17, give their California school high marks for diversity."
Beside the jump, or continued, portion is another photo, this one of a young man.
Inexplicably, all three pictured are leaping into the air in the photos from Knight Ridder Newspapers.
Perhaps explicably, but not explained, all three are very white, blonde and blond, even.
So where is the "diversity" in the "news" story and photos?
Monday, May 23, 2005
There oughta be ...
If I were more avuncular, or grandfatherly, perhaps I could look with kindly eye and consider as child-like faith a comment by a (stereotypical) journalist in a recent article about a fatal accident in an amusement park in northeastern Tennessee.
The reporter -- not a Times Free Press staffer -- said the state was one of only a few that didn't have regulations on amusement park rides.
A gentler soul, as I said, could be touched by the simple, naive belief that a government rule could have averted the accident in which a woman fell from a ride and was killed.
Reporters often say things like that: Such-and-such state has no regulations on ... whatever.
So-and-so city doesn't have any laws regulating ... something or other.
As readers of this blog, and of the Chattanooga Times Free Press and of newspapers generally, know, newspapers and magazines make mistakes (look especially at the recent whopper by Newsweek), make errors of fact and errors of conclusion and errors of general knowledge, not to mention many errors of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage.
(Reporters usually know nothing of economics and very little of history and of moral philosophy.)
Reporters never, though, mention this: Tennessee also has no state law overseeing language in newspapers, regulating correct editing, mandating accuracy in newspapers.
Obviously, with linguistic quality in, especially, newspapers and news services deteriorating on an almost daily basis, now is the time for the Tennessee General Assembly to step forward with some corrective regulations, to write bills to repair the situation with forward-thinking laws.
Reporters need to take note: As of now, Tennessee is one of only 50 states with no newspaper regulation, a shocking condition too reactionary for words.
All reporters and news outlets should immediately, and frequently, alert the public to this lack.
The reporter -- not a Times Free Press staffer -- said the state was one of only a few that didn't have regulations on amusement park rides.
A gentler soul, as I said, could be touched by the simple, naive belief that a government rule could have averted the accident in which a woman fell from a ride and was killed.
Reporters often say things like that: Such-and-such state has no regulations on ... whatever.
So-and-so city doesn't have any laws regulating ... something or other.
As readers of this blog, and of the Chattanooga Times Free Press and of newspapers generally, know, newspapers and magazines make mistakes (look especially at the recent whopper by Newsweek), make errors of fact and errors of conclusion and errors of general knowledge, not to mention many errors of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage.
(Reporters usually know nothing of economics and very little of history and of moral philosophy.)
Reporters never, though, mention this: Tennessee also has no state law overseeing language in newspapers, regulating correct editing, mandating accuracy in newspapers.
Obviously, with linguistic quality in, especially, newspapers and news services deteriorating on an almost daily basis, now is the time for the Tennessee General Assembly to step forward with some corrective regulations, to write bills to repair the situation with forward-thinking laws.
Reporters need to take note: As of now, Tennessee is one of only 50 states with no newspaper regulation, a shocking condition too reactionary for words.
All reporters and news outlets should immediately, and frequently, alert the public to this lack.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Pity the proo reader
Us artists, especially us blond artists, are frequently disorganized.
For example, I have set aside some copies of the Chattanooga Times Free Press for purposes of discussion here -- and now can't find them.
Alas, we must now depend on my fading memory. However, thanks to all the great advances in technology, if I make any misteaks, well, shucks, we'll just come back later and eddit them out.
So, what I will discuss today is some more miserable proofreading and/or miserable copy editing on the editorial pages.
Before we go further, let me urge you to refresh your memory, if you're a previous visitor, or, if you're new, to acquaint yourself with the major reason this blog was initiated: Please go to the archives and look at the second entry, "Shapes."
I'll wait ...
Welcome back.
Recent letters to the editor have contained some intriguing comments.
One said something about some proposal being "tauted."
I would not urge anyone to bet that the author used that spelling, but certainly a real editor should have corrected it -- although the possibility is great the alleged editor made the error.
Another said parents should be "roll models."
I would think that, in Chattanooga, perhaps parents should rather be biscuit models -- but that wouldn't make any sense, either. Although it would be funnier.
The Chattanooga Times Free Press, like so many other publications, needs a major infusion of knowledge, knowledge of grammar, punctuation, spelling -- of general language and language use.
Of course there will be mistakes. We all make 'em. That's why God gave us erasers for pencils; He knew ahead of time we would all make mistakes -- and that is why we have a word for it, MIStakes.
Still, the consistent sloppiness on the pages of the Times Free Press, and especially on the editorial pages, should make even newspaper owners and bosses wake up, at least enough to become aware that sloppy editing is one reason for declining readership.
Oh, about that title: Many years ago, some publication or other was lamenting the sloppiness of another's editing and typesetting, noting error after error. It extended its sympathy, saying "Pity the proo reader."
Poor editing is one reason readers, proo and otherwise, are lessening in number.
For example, I have set aside some copies of the Chattanooga Times Free Press for purposes of discussion here -- and now can't find them.
Alas, we must now depend on my fading memory. However, thanks to all the great advances in technology, if I make any misteaks, well, shucks, we'll just come back later and eddit them out.
So, what I will discuss today is some more miserable proofreading and/or miserable copy editing on the editorial pages.
Before we go further, let me urge you to refresh your memory, if you're a previous visitor, or, if you're new, to acquaint yourself with the major reason this blog was initiated: Please go to the archives and look at the second entry, "Shapes."
I'll wait ...
Welcome back.
Recent letters to the editor have contained some intriguing comments.
One said something about some proposal being "tauted."
I would not urge anyone to bet that the author used that spelling, but certainly a real editor should have corrected it -- although the possibility is great the alleged editor made the error.
Another said parents should be "roll models."
I would think that, in Chattanooga, perhaps parents should rather be biscuit models -- but that wouldn't make any sense, either. Although it would be funnier.
The Chattanooga Times Free Press, like so many other publications, needs a major infusion of knowledge, knowledge of grammar, punctuation, spelling -- of general language and language use.
Of course there will be mistakes. We all make 'em. That's why God gave us erasers for pencils; He knew ahead of time we would all make mistakes -- and that is why we have a word for it, MIStakes.
Still, the consistent sloppiness on the pages of the Times Free Press, and especially on the editorial pages, should make even newspaper owners and bosses wake up, at least enough to become aware that sloppy editing is one reason for declining readership.
Oh, about that title: Many years ago, some publication or other was lamenting the sloppiness of another's editing and typesetting, noting error after error. It extended its sympathy, saying "Pity the proo reader."
Poor editing is one reason readers, proo and otherwise, are lessening in number.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Media love Stalin?
Is the long-running love affair of "news" media and Josef Stalin still on?
Surely by now everyone knows of The New York Times, its Moscow correspondent ("reporter" is too polite a term for him) Walter Duranty, and their infatuation with the second bloodiest tyrant the world has ever known.
Only Mao Tse-tung can have more bodies counted against his name (although Ho Chi Minh might have a higher percentage of population).
A friend wrote, regarding a columnist's recent writing, "I don't know what he means about 'come clean over Stalin's crimes'; is there anybody who's denying them?"
How about Associated Press writer Maria Danilova?
An article in the Times Free Press of Monday, 9 May 2005, has this paragraph in a story about the recent visit of President Bush and his meeting with Russia's more-or-less President Putin: "Stalin came to power after the death of Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin in 1924 and began a reign of terror that lasted nearly three decades, ending only with his death in 1953. An estimated 20 million people were executed, imprisoned or deported to other parts of the former Soviet Union. Altogether, 10 million are believed to have died."
I would call that "praising with faint damns."
Even a certain former New York Times figure estimated more like 85 million died as a result of Stalin's crimes.
Heck, some 15 million died in Stalin's induced famine in (what was then The) Ukraine alone.
Danilova reported several efforts at "rehabilitating" Stalin, from erecting statues to Stalin to naming streets after him to re-re-naming Volgograd Stalingrad.
She reported that "Recent opinion polls have shown that nearly half of Russians hold a largely positive view of Stalin ..."
And there is this classic line attributed to Putin: "It goes without saying that Stalin was a tyrant, whom many call a criminal. But he wasn't a Hitler."
True enough. If Stalin had shown the efficiency and organization of Hitler and his Nazi butchers, perhaps he would have been able to claim even more scores of millions of victims.
"Wasn't a Hitler"? No, but he was Hitler's ally in the invasion of Poland.
He was so much worse than Hitler, that Ukrainians first welcomed even the invading Germans as liberators, until Nazi zeal overrode any strategic common sense.
Many of the peoples conquered and destroyed by Stalin saw even Hitler as a lesser evil.
Operation Keelhaul, though, put an end to any outspoken opposition to the bloody imperialist slavery of Stalin and his murderers.
Please go to Google and look up "Operation Keelhaul" for a chilling, terrifying reminder of another example of the U.S. government's aiding and abetting mass murder and slavery.
And while you're at it, look up "Walter Duranty" for a chilling, terrifying reminder of another example of "news" media, especially The New York Times, sellout of the human race.
Surely by now everyone knows of The New York Times, its Moscow correspondent ("reporter" is too polite a term for him) Walter Duranty, and their infatuation with the second bloodiest tyrant the world has ever known.
Only Mao Tse-tung can have more bodies counted against his name (although Ho Chi Minh might have a higher percentage of population).
A friend wrote, regarding a columnist's recent writing, "I don't know what he means about 'come clean over Stalin's crimes'; is there anybody who's denying them?"
How about Associated Press writer Maria Danilova?
An article in the Times Free Press of Monday, 9 May 2005, has this paragraph in a story about the recent visit of President Bush and his meeting with Russia's more-or-less President Putin: "Stalin came to power after the death of Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin in 1924 and began a reign of terror that lasted nearly three decades, ending only with his death in 1953. An estimated 20 million people were executed, imprisoned or deported to other parts of the former Soviet Union. Altogether, 10 million are believed to have died."
I would call that "praising with faint damns."
Even a certain former New York Times figure estimated more like 85 million died as a result of Stalin's crimes.
Heck, some 15 million died in Stalin's induced famine in (what was then The) Ukraine alone.
Danilova reported several efforts at "rehabilitating" Stalin, from erecting statues to Stalin to naming streets after him to re-re-naming Volgograd Stalingrad.
She reported that "Recent opinion polls have shown that nearly half of Russians hold a largely positive view of Stalin ..."
And there is this classic line attributed to Putin: "It goes without saying that Stalin was a tyrant, whom many call a criminal. But he wasn't a Hitler."
True enough. If Stalin had shown the efficiency and organization of Hitler and his Nazi butchers, perhaps he would have been able to claim even more scores of millions of victims.
"Wasn't a Hitler"? No, but he was Hitler's ally in the invasion of Poland.
He was so much worse than Hitler, that Ukrainians first welcomed even the invading Germans as liberators, until Nazi zeal overrode any strategic common sense.
Many of the peoples conquered and destroyed by Stalin saw even Hitler as a lesser evil.
Operation Keelhaul, though, put an end to any outspoken opposition to the bloody imperialist slavery of Stalin and his murderers.
Please go to Google and look up "Operation Keelhaul" for a chilling, terrifying reminder of another example of the U.S. government's aiding and abetting mass murder and slavery.
And while you're at it, look up "Walter Duranty" for a chilling, terrifying reminder of another example of "news" media, especially The New York Times, sellout of the human race.
Larry Niven was right: TANJ
SF author Larry Niven, in several of his books and stories, coined an acronymed phrase, There Ain’t No Justice, or TANJ. It never caught the reading public’s imagination as widely and deeply as did Robert Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (from Heinlein’s superb “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress”).
But there really ain’t no justice. Well, my word processing program keeps nagging at me to say “isn’t” and I hate to cave in to such a fussy and otherwise inanimate object, but, OK, There really is, or at least often seems to be, no justice.
In the Times Free Press edition of Monday, 9 May 2005, is this headline on the front page: Some say justice system failed family.
Perhaps the first flaw, or at least the first one seen, is “some say” is too often a reporter’s and/or editor’s way of saying “I think.”
But the reporter does begin her story with “In the days since a man paroled for a 1995 murder confessed to killing his wife, stepdaughter and infant son, some have begun questioning Tennessee’s justice system.”
The man said to have confessed had been previously imprisoned for second-degree murder of his “girlfriend,” as the paper phrased it.
The story continues: The sister of the current victim “wants to know why he was released from prison after only serving 30 percent of his sentence.”
There are two questionable sentences, that given to and served by a convicted murderer and that written by the reporter – although some mis-called copy editor could have re-written it to be that clumsy.
A paper’s employees are paid to know the English language, but in further illustration of how the industry and the language itself are being degraded, the little word “only” is far too often misplaced.
A general rule of grammar is a modifier should be placed as close as possible to the modifiee.
The convicted killer was not “only” serving. While he was serving he was doing lots of other things, including breathing air that could have better served someone else, and he was eating taxpayer food that could have better fed someone else.
No, what the reporter – and/or editor – should have said was “… after serving only 30 percent of his sentence.”
It is that fraction of his sentence that is deserving of a speaker’s or writer’s or victim's relative's ire, not the serving.
Finally, a philosophical point that brings us back to author Niven’s phrase: In Tennessee, likely in the entire United States, probably in the entire world, there is no such thing as a “justice system.”
What does exist, what is so often mis-called a “justice system” is in actuality a legal system. It is a process and perhaps a system, though maybe it is using that term rather loosely, of laws, of trials and punishments.
Justice, though, requires a redress, a returning to balance. Restitution would be justice. (And that of course asks another question: How does one provide restitution in a case of murder, or even of accidental killing? Author Barry Longyear has attempted to answer that question. He too writes SF, science fiction or, better, speculative fiction.)
The front page is not the place, perhaps, to discuss the question of justice, but front-page articles such as this one certainly do demonstrate the need for such discussion.
But there really ain’t no justice. Well, my word processing program keeps nagging at me to say “isn’t” and I hate to cave in to such a fussy and otherwise inanimate object, but, OK, There really is, or at least often seems to be, no justice.
In the Times Free Press edition of Monday, 9 May 2005, is this headline on the front page: Some say justice system failed family.
Perhaps the first flaw, or at least the first one seen, is “some say” is too often a reporter’s and/or editor’s way of saying “I think.”
But the reporter does begin her story with “In the days since a man paroled for a 1995 murder confessed to killing his wife, stepdaughter and infant son, some have begun questioning Tennessee’s justice system.”
The man said to have confessed had been previously imprisoned for second-degree murder of his “girlfriend,” as the paper phrased it.
The story continues: The sister of the current victim “wants to know why he was released from prison after only serving 30 percent of his sentence.”
There are two questionable sentences, that given to and served by a convicted murderer and that written by the reporter – although some mis-called copy editor could have re-written it to be that clumsy.
A paper’s employees are paid to know the English language, but in further illustration of how the industry and the language itself are being degraded, the little word “only” is far too often misplaced.
A general rule of grammar is a modifier should be placed as close as possible to the modifiee.
The convicted killer was not “only” serving. While he was serving he was doing lots of other things, including breathing air that could have better served someone else, and he was eating taxpayer food that could have better fed someone else.
No, what the reporter – and/or editor – should have said was “… after serving only 30 percent of his sentence.”
It is that fraction of his sentence that is deserving of a speaker’s or writer’s or victim's relative's ire, not the serving.
Finally, a philosophical point that brings us back to author Niven’s phrase: In Tennessee, likely in the entire United States, probably in the entire world, there is no such thing as a “justice system.”
What does exist, what is so often mis-called a “justice system” is in actuality a legal system. It is a process and perhaps a system, though maybe it is using that term rather loosely, of laws, of trials and punishments.
Justice, though, requires a redress, a returning to balance. Restitution would be justice. (And that of course asks another question: How does one provide restitution in a case of murder, or even of accidental killing? Author Barry Longyear has attempted to answer that question. He too writes SF, science fiction or, better, speculative fiction.)
The front page is not the place, perhaps, to discuss the question of justice, but front-page articles such as this one certainly do demonstrate the need for such discussion.
Friday, May 06, 2005
George Santayana: Call your office
"He who does not know history ..."
Recently a friend gave me a copy of the over-rated New York Times.
So far I have had, or taken, time to read only one article, and in it were at least two editing errors, including an "its" that should have been "it's."
Not just to bash that much over-rated publication, I point out those errors to point up the woeful dearth of intelligent copy editing throughout the industry.
So to be fair I must say the copy editing at the Chattanooga Times Free Press is not much, if any, worse than at other "news"papers.
However, another example of poor copy editing in the edition of Friday, 6 May 2005, has driven me from my sick bed to the computer to rail and rant.
In the regular section known as "Weekend," a mini-review of the movie "Kung Fu Hustle" includes this line:
Sort of a "Lil' Abner's" Dogpatch meets "The Matrix" ...
It's bad enough the kids holding the job and title of "copy editor" don't know much of anything about language, spelling, punctuation, but they don't have any concept of the American cultural tradition.
If Al Capp were alive, he'd turn over in his grave that some infantile and ignorant dropout, meaning the unidentified author (who, by the way, is at the even more over-rated Atlanta Journal-Constitution) would so mangle the name of his creation, that lovable oaf whose strength was as the strength of ten because his heart was pure (and his head was empty, said one of the character's critics), Li'l Abner.
But that authors can and do make misteaks is why the Good Lord gave us copy editors ... although it might not be He who gave us today's crop.
To those people for whom English is a second language, such as recent college graduates who become "news"paper copy editors, an apostrophe has several uses, including showing possession (as in "the boy's comic strip") or to show contraction (as in "don't y'all want to come in?" with "don't" equaling "do not" and "y'all" being the contraction of "you all," which Yankees and other ignorami so often misspell "ya'll," though that would mean "ya will").
"Li'l" as in Li'l Abner is a country way of saying "little," an obvious joke since Abner was about the size of his mammy and pappy put together and doubled.
There are some people today alleged to be musical who use the appelation "Lil'" for some reason -- and here I confess to a lot of ignorance regarding the pop culture, but I consider it to be blessed ignorance.
Actually I have heard of someone called "Lil' Kim," but know nothing other than that he or she exists.
So, OK, if I were a copy editor whose job entailed reading and proofing copy regarding the pop scene, I would make it part of my job to find out about "Lil' Kim."
Even more important, I would make it a major part of my job to understand the tools with which I work, including apostrophes.
By the way, even the most cursory look at Google shows nearly 84,000 references to "Li'l Abner," including http://www.lil-abner.com, and if such a look is too much effort to ask of a copy editor, then I will growl, the so-called copy editor should have already known the rudiments of contraction and apostrophe use before being hired.
Which brings up another question: Who hires these people?
Finally, "misteaks" was my little joke.
Recently a friend gave me a copy of the over-rated New York Times.
So far I have had, or taken, time to read only one article, and in it were at least two editing errors, including an "its" that should have been "it's."
Not just to bash that much over-rated publication, I point out those errors to point up the woeful dearth of intelligent copy editing throughout the industry.
So to be fair I must say the copy editing at the Chattanooga Times Free Press is not much, if any, worse than at other "news"papers.
However, another example of poor copy editing in the edition of Friday, 6 May 2005, has driven me from my sick bed to the computer to rail and rant.
In the regular section known as "Weekend," a mini-review of the movie "Kung Fu Hustle" includes this line:
Sort of a "Lil' Abner's" Dogpatch meets "The Matrix" ...
It's bad enough the kids holding the job and title of "copy editor" don't know much of anything about language, spelling, punctuation, but they don't have any concept of the American cultural tradition.
If Al Capp were alive, he'd turn over in his grave that some infantile and ignorant dropout, meaning the unidentified author (who, by the way, is at the even more over-rated Atlanta Journal-Constitution) would so mangle the name of his creation, that lovable oaf whose strength was as the strength of ten because his heart was pure (and his head was empty, said one of the character's critics), Li'l Abner.
But that authors can and do make misteaks is why the Good Lord gave us copy editors ... although it might not be He who gave us today's crop.
To those people for whom English is a second language, such as recent college graduates who become "news"paper copy editors, an apostrophe has several uses, including showing possession (as in "the boy's comic strip") or to show contraction (as in "don't y'all want to come in?" with "don't" equaling "do not" and "y'all" being the contraction of "you all," which Yankees and other ignorami so often misspell "ya'll," though that would mean "ya will").
"Li'l" as in Li'l Abner is a country way of saying "little," an obvious joke since Abner was about the size of his mammy and pappy put together and doubled.
There are some people today alleged to be musical who use the appelation "Lil'" for some reason -- and here I confess to a lot of ignorance regarding the pop culture, but I consider it to be blessed ignorance.
Actually I have heard of someone called "Lil' Kim," but know nothing other than that he or she exists.
So, OK, if I were a copy editor whose job entailed reading and proofing copy regarding the pop scene, I would make it part of my job to find out about "Lil' Kim."
Even more important, I would make it a major part of my job to understand the tools with which I work, including apostrophes.
By the way, even the most cursory look at Google shows nearly 84,000 references to "Li'l Abner," including http://www.lil-abner.com, and if such a look is too much effort to ask of a copy editor, then I will growl, the so-called copy editor should have already known the rudiments of contraction and apostrophe use before being hired.
Which brings up another question: Who hires these people?
Finally, "misteaks" was my little joke.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Revenue enhancement: Tax bad editing
Look, first, at "Which way is up?" below, then read on here. I'll wait for you to catch up.
Thank you.
In the Times Free Press of Saturday, 30 April 2005, on Page B2, is this headline: "Georgia state tax burden 9th lowest."
The story is written by Matthew S. L. Cate, staff writer, and is much clearer than the similar story about Tennessee from an Associated Press writer.
It begins by quoting "federal figures" and "the U.S. Census Bureau" that "Georgia has the ninth-lowest per-capita state tax burden, but state budget analysts said that designation is misleading because it doesn't take local taxes into account."
Parenthetically, and not part of the Cate story, Georgia used to have a state sales tax -- on top of a state income tax and all the other property and other taxes -- on groceries.
Roy Barnes ran for governor, as a Democrat, in 1998 promising, among other things, to end the state sales tax on groceries.
Surprisingly -- perhaps shockingly -- he kept that promise. (I mean, who remembers a Democrat even promising to end any tax? And then for one to keep such a promise? Unheard of!)
The state did indeed repeal the (I think 2 percent) sales tax on groceries -- and almost immediately almost all the counties added (usually 2 percent) to the local sales tax.
So perhaps the information does figure in the story, since apparently the "federal figures" do not include that regressive tax.
Still the Cate story goes on to say the per person "state tax burden was $1,650 in 2004 ... That's what it was in 2000, and the per-capita rate has varied about $100 more or less since then.
"Tennessee's 2004 state tax burden was $1,616. That's good for seventh lowest."
At least this story has the proper perspective, unlike the earlier one cited below.
However, there is another math problem: There are 50 states; Tennessee ranks 44th highest, so it should be sixth lowest.
Unless the statistics are supposed to include Washington, D.C., even though it is not, actually, a state.
Reporter Cate, though, goes on to make some good points far too many reporters don't seek.
"Kelly McCutchen, executive vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, said when local taxes and fees are combined Georgians have the 17th lowest tax burden."
Here are the last two paragraphs: "Mr. McCutchen said if anything, state leaders are likely to look for ways to reduce the tax burden further.
"'It's what people want,' he said. 'Every dollar of taxes is forcibly taking away (someone's) money.'"
Such an accurate portrayal of the source of "government money" is unfortunately rare in "news" papers.
There is one problem, not so much with Cate's story, but with the particular analysis.
Take all the revenue, divide that number by the state's population, one gets the per capita number.
A more accurate analysis of a particular tax burden -- and I do like Cate's use of the phrase "tax burden" -- would describe the comparative rates. In a state filled with Mormons, Catholics, and Hillbillies, for example, families would tend to have more members; so taking some kind of total tax burden and dividing it among the numbers of population would not yield an accurate picture of the tax situation.
What is the rate of income tax? What is the percentage of sales tax? What are the assessment rates of property taxes?
"Averages" can be very misleading, and I'm sure neither reporters nor government officials would ever want us to be misinformed.
Thank you.
In the Times Free Press of Saturday, 30 April 2005, on Page B2, is this headline: "Georgia state tax burden 9th lowest."
The story is written by Matthew S. L. Cate, staff writer, and is much clearer than the similar story about Tennessee from an Associated Press writer.
It begins by quoting "federal figures" and "the U.S. Census Bureau" that "Georgia has the ninth-lowest per-capita state tax burden, but state budget analysts said that designation is misleading because it doesn't take local taxes into account."
Parenthetically, and not part of the Cate story, Georgia used to have a state sales tax -- on top of a state income tax and all the other property and other taxes -- on groceries.
Roy Barnes ran for governor, as a Democrat, in 1998 promising, among other things, to end the state sales tax on groceries.
Surprisingly -- perhaps shockingly -- he kept that promise. (I mean, who remembers a Democrat even promising to end any tax? And then for one to keep such a promise? Unheard of!)
The state did indeed repeal the (I think 2 percent) sales tax on groceries -- and almost immediately almost all the counties added (usually 2 percent) to the local sales tax.
So perhaps the information does figure in the story, since apparently the "federal figures" do not include that regressive tax.
Still the Cate story goes on to say the per person "state tax burden was $1,650 in 2004 ... That's what it was in 2000, and the per-capita rate has varied about $100 more or less since then.
"Tennessee's 2004 state tax burden was $1,616. That's good for seventh lowest."
At least this story has the proper perspective, unlike the earlier one cited below.
However, there is another math problem: There are 50 states; Tennessee ranks 44th highest, so it should be sixth lowest.
Unless the statistics are supposed to include Washington, D.C., even though it is not, actually, a state.
Reporter Cate, though, goes on to make some good points far too many reporters don't seek.
"Kelly McCutchen, executive vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, said when local taxes and fees are combined Georgians have the 17th lowest tax burden."
Here are the last two paragraphs: "Mr. McCutchen said if anything, state leaders are likely to look for ways to reduce the tax burden further.
"'It's what people want,' he said. 'Every dollar of taxes is forcibly taking away (someone's) money.'"
Such an accurate portrayal of the source of "government money" is unfortunately rare in "news" papers.
There is one problem, not so much with Cate's story, but with the particular analysis.
Take all the revenue, divide that number by the state's population, one gets the per capita number.
A more accurate analysis of a particular tax burden -- and I do like Cate's use of the phrase "tax burden" -- would describe the comparative rates. In a state filled with Mormons, Catholics, and Hillbillies, for example, families would tend to have more members; so taking some kind of total tax burden and dividing it among the numbers of population would not yield an accurate picture of the tax situation.
What is the rate of income tax? What is the percentage of sales tax? What are the assessment rates of property taxes?
"Averages" can be very misleading, and I'm sure neither reporters nor government officials would ever want us to be misinformed.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Which way is up?
"State burden 44th lowest in nation," reads a headline on Page B1 in the Chattanooga Times Free Press dated Thursday, 28 April 2005.
Not very good news for the overburdened workers and producers of Tennessee.
Or is it?
Hmmmm.
The story is not from a TFP staff writer, but from one Duncan Mansfield of the Associated Press, datelined Knoxville. (Why is it still called a "dateline" when no date is given?)
In the first paragraph, one can read "... but Tennesseans continue to pay some of the lowest taxes in the country ..."
"Some of the lowest"? But "44th lowest"?
In the second paragraph, Mansfield writes, "On a per-person basis, Tennesseans paid $1,616 in state taxes in 2004. That ranks 44th lowest among the states and $408 less than the national average -- despite a sales tax increase in 2003."
Confused yet? Obviously so are the poor copy editors at the Times Free Press.
A University of Tennessee professor is quoted as saying "... Tennessee has been, is and remains a very low-tax state."
But "very" would certainly rank higher than 44th.
Say, could it be ...? Yes, I think the very poor copy editors meant "44th highest," statistically correct but less enticing.
Perhaps the head -- and story -- should have read "sixth lowest."
Let's see if the paper runs any kind of correction in the Friday edition.
Not very good news for the overburdened workers and producers of Tennessee.
Or is it?
Hmmmm.
The story is not from a TFP staff writer, but from one Duncan Mansfield of the Associated Press, datelined Knoxville. (Why is it still called a "dateline" when no date is given?)
In the first paragraph, one can read "... but Tennesseans continue to pay some of the lowest taxes in the country ..."
"Some of the lowest"? But "44th lowest"?
In the second paragraph, Mansfield writes, "On a per-person basis, Tennesseans paid $1,616 in state taxes in 2004. That ranks 44th lowest among the states and $408 less than the national average -- despite a sales tax increase in 2003."
Confused yet? Obviously so are the poor copy editors at the Times Free Press.
A University of Tennessee professor is quoted as saying "... Tennessee has been, is and remains a very low-tax state."
But "very" would certainly rank higher than 44th.
Say, could it be ...? Yes, I think the very poor copy editors meant "44th highest," statistically correct but less enticing.
Perhaps the head -- and story -- should have read "sixth lowest."
Let's see if the paper runs any kind of correction in the Friday edition.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Editorial on freedom, Sunday, 17 April 2005
Not quite unique, but still unusual, the Chattanooga Times Free Press, which resulted from merging two papers, carries two different and differing editorial pages.
Titled "Freedom even to make bad choices," this particular Free Press editorial deserves special mention and attention:
"One of the few things worse than the horribly unhealthful decision to smoke is the effort by some to take away from businesses the freedom to decide whether to permit smoking.
"There should be no confusion about smoking itself. It has been shown repeatedly by both rigorous scientific studies and the daily experience of smokers to be devastatingly harmful to smokers' health -- not to mention expensive.
"But the fact is, tobacco is a legal product that some people, however unwisely, choose to use. So long as it remains legal, it is not the place of government to dictate to private businesses whether they may allow smoking on their premises.
"The Agriculture Committee of the Tennessee House of Representatives has appropriately beaten back, at least for now, a bill that would bar smoking in most enclosed public places.
"Supporters said it would protect public health. But it would try to achieve that proper aim by improperly trampling the liberty of restaurants and other facilities that chose to permit smoking.
"We wish all Americans would voluntarily decide not to smoke. But until that day comes, government should not assume the role of nanny."
The author deserves high praise for the use of the word "unhealthful," which most newspaper writers these days, including headline writers of the Times Free Press, don't seem to know and instead misuse "healthy."
But please remember these words. Please remember the objection to government's being a nanny.
There will be more on this later.
Titled "Freedom even to make bad choices," this particular Free Press editorial deserves special mention and attention:
"One of the few things worse than the horribly unhealthful decision to smoke is the effort by some to take away from businesses the freedom to decide whether to permit smoking.
"There should be no confusion about smoking itself. It has been shown repeatedly by both rigorous scientific studies and the daily experience of smokers to be devastatingly harmful to smokers' health -- not to mention expensive.
"But the fact is, tobacco is a legal product that some people, however unwisely, choose to use. So long as it remains legal, it is not the place of government to dictate to private businesses whether they may allow smoking on their premises.
"The Agriculture Committee of the Tennessee House of Representatives has appropriately beaten back, at least for now, a bill that would bar smoking in most enclosed public places.
"Supporters said it would protect public health. But it would try to achieve that proper aim by improperly trampling the liberty of restaurants and other facilities that chose to permit smoking.
"We wish all Americans would voluntarily decide not to smoke. But until that day comes, government should not assume the role of nanny."
The author deserves high praise for the use of the word "unhealthful," which most newspaper writers these days, including headline writers of the Times Free Press, don't seem to know and instead misuse "healthy."
But please remember these words. Please remember the objection to government's being a nanny.
There will be more on this later.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Another day to live in infamy
"Paying for IRS cheaters" reads the head on an article syndicated by the loathesome Cox News Service.
The author is Bob Dart, and the article was published in the April 15 (familiar date?) edition of the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
The subhead says, "Honest taxpayers are subsidizing those who are evading the law, IRS says."
At least the paper attributes the comment, to the even more loathesome IRS, rather than printing it as fact.
Still, the article uses such phrases as "Americans who suspect they are paying more than their fair share of federal income taxes are right ..."
The dishonesty comes from assuming there is something properly called a "fair share" of federal income taxes.
The dishonesty comes from accepting the federal government's alleged needs to be of more account than the right of the wage earner to keep his money and use it to buy food or clothing or shelter.
The dishonesty comes from allowing a false premise that government deserves some particular chunk of money from the workers and producers even before the workers and producers can fulfill the needs of themselves and their families, and that it is "evaders" and "cheaters" who are the cause of the financial anguish to the workers and producers, rather than the tax system and insane spending of the government.
Frederic Bastiat already wrote about one aspect of this phenomenon some 160 years ago. When the glazier gets a job to replace the baker's window, the gathering mob agrees the economy is getting a boost because the glazier gets some money he might not have been paid otherwise.
What is ignored is that the baker might well have had other intentions in mind for his money, that his freedom of choice is taken from him by the vandal who broke his window.
Newspaper writers in general, and Cox writers in particular, have little or, more likely, no knowledge of economics and certainly none of Bastiat.
If you are paying "more than your fair share," then blame properly belongs to the tax collectors -- and to the academics and journalists who aid and abet -- not to those people who find ways to keep their own money.
The author is Bob Dart, and the article was published in the April 15 (familiar date?) edition of the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
The subhead says, "Honest taxpayers are subsidizing those who are evading the law, IRS says."
At least the paper attributes the comment, to the even more loathesome IRS, rather than printing it as fact.
Still, the article uses such phrases as "Americans who suspect they are paying more than their fair share of federal income taxes are right ..."
The dishonesty comes from assuming there is something properly called a "fair share" of federal income taxes.
The dishonesty comes from accepting the federal government's alleged needs to be of more account than the right of the wage earner to keep his money and use it to buy food or clothing or shelter.
The dishonesty comes from allowing a false premise that government deserves some particular chunk of money from the workers and producers even before the workers and producers can fulfill the needs of themselves and their families, and that it is "evaders" and "cheaters" who are the cause of the financial anguish to the workers and producers, rather than the tax system and insane spending of the government.
Frederic Bastiat already wrote about one aspect of this phenomenon some 160 years ago. When the glazier gets a job to replace the baker's window, the gathering mob agrees the economy is getting a boost because the glazier gets some money he might not have been paid otherwise.
What is ignored is that the baker might well have had other intentions in mind for his money, that his freedom of choice is taken from him by the vandal who broke his window.
Newspaper writers in general, and Cox writers in particular, have little or, more likely, no knowledge of economics and certainly none of Bastiat.
If you are paying "more than your fair share," then blame properly belongs to the tax collectors -- and to the academics and journalists who aid and abet -- not to those people who find ways to keep their own money.
Don't worry about school failure
Surely most of us, at least over the age of mumble-mumble, learned not to define in the following terms.
In the April 15, 2005, edition of the Chattanooga Times Free Press (a day that was taxing in many ways), a "staff writer," who shall not be identified (and embarrassed) here, wrote a column on blogging and one particular blogger.
The headline read, "Blogging links world to local politics," and the subhead was, "Signal Mountain resident's entry on Daily Kos blog draws widespread attention."
Probably all of us have heard of Daily Kos, and maybe some of us have even tried to read it more than once. I, though, never heard of the blogger mentioned, but that's another story entirely.
My point is this: "Blogging, a growing medium in the online world, is when Web users post and respond to journal entries on a variety of topics."
"Blogging ... is when ..."???
I remember being taught way back in mumble-mumble, when I was a literal babe ... well, certainly pre-pubescent, anyway, that no literate person defines something as "when."
This is, I fear, a fair sample of what passes for writing in the Times Free Press.
Worse, it is a fair sample of what passes for copy editing in the Times Free Press.
So, to explain the title of this entry, don't worry if your child isn't learning good grammar or how to write clearly or proper phraseology. That child might grow up -- or not -- and be able to make a living as a "journalist."
THEN you should worry.
In the April 15, 2005, edition of the Chattanooga Times Free Press (a day that was taxing in many ways), a "staff writer," who shall not be identified (and embarrassed) here, wrote a column on blogging and one particular blogger.
The headline read, "Blogging links world to local politics," and the subhead was, "Signal Mountain resident's entry on Daily Kos blog draws widespread attention."
Probably all of us have heard of Daily Kos, and maybe some of us have even tried to read it more than once. I, though, never heard of the blogger mentioned, but that's another story entirely.
My point is this: "Blogging, a growing medium in the online world, is when Web users post and respond to journal entries on a variety of topics."
"Blogging ... is when ..."???
I remember being taught way back in mumble-mumble, when I was a literal babe ... well, certainly pre-pubescent, anyway, that no literate person defines something as "when."
This is, I fear, a fair sample of what passes for writing in the Times Free Press.
Worse, it is a fair sample of what passes for copy editing in the Times Free Press.
So, to explain the title of this entry, don't worry if your child isn't learning good grammar or how to write clearly or proper phraseology. That child might grow up -- or not -- and be able to make a living as a "journalist."
THEN you should worry.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Not true
Despite reports to the contrary, it is not true that Times Free Press food editor Anne Braly asked the owner of a fancy Chattanooga restaurant the secret of a delicious meal.
And the owner did not tell her, "We chefs are just like reporters in one respect: We never reveal our sauces."
And the owner did not tell her, "We chefs are just like reporters in one respect: We never reveal our sauces."
Correction (fluid)
Recently the publisher of the Times Free Press, Tom Griscom, wrote in his weekly column that, though the paper really tries hard to avoid mistakes, gosh darn it, mistakes still happen.
He recounted one, and then said he wishes he had a barrel of "white-out."
I suppose we all know what he meant, but, alas, it is another mistake.
The best-known brand of typewriter correction fluid is "Wite-Out" (usually shown in graphics as "Wite•Out"), a registered trademark of the Bic company.
Seems the Times Free Press cannot get even its mea culpas right.
He recounted one, and then said he wishes he had a barrel of "white-out."
I suppose we all know what he meant, but, alas, it is another mistake.
The best-known brand of typewriter correction fluid is "Wite-Out" (usually shown in graphics as "Wite•Out"), a registered trademark of the Bic company.
Seems the Times Free Press cannot get even its mea culpas right.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Dictionary gone?
In the Times Free Press classified section, category 191 is "Money to Loan."
I realize the classified sections of newspapers all across the country don't have either editors or proofreaders -- but they should. (I remember working at one paper in South Georgia where the computer guru on staff shook his head sadly one day and said of the young woman in charge of the classified ads, "She broke the spell checker.")
In proper grammar and usage, the heading should be "Money To Lend."
"Loan" is a noun.
"To Lend" is the infinitive, so the "to" should be "To."
And, to the best of my memory, that error was pointed out to the paper some 50 years ago, yet has continued to this day, 22 April 2005.
Any bets as to whether it will ever be corrected?
I realize the classified sections of newspapers all across the country don't have either editors or proofreaders -- but they should. (I remember working at one paper in South Georgia where the computer guru on staff shook his head sadly one day and said of the young woman in charge of the classified ads, "She broke the spell checker.")
In proper grammar and usage, the heading should be "Money To Lend."
"Loan" is a noun.
"To Lend" is the infinitive, so the "to" should be "To."
And, to the best of my memory, that error was pointed out to the paper some 50 years ago, yet has continued to this day, 22 April 2005.
Any bets as to whether it will ever be corrected?
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Shapes of things to come
Someone I know well, now a former journalist, said he gave up being an atheist because, if there were no Hell, "Where would we put the editors?"
Any of us who have written letters to the editor know what he means.
Here is an example. In early February, 2005, I wrote a whimsical, tongue-in-cheek pontification to the Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times Free Press. Everything was spelled correctly, all the punctuation was just as it should be, and the grammar and style were perfect for what was intended.
Editor, Times Free Press
Dear Editor,
In your edition of Saturday last, you published a story on the new steeple for Ridgeview Baptist Church.
Your reporter – and editors – said the parcel of land upon which the church sits is “pie shaped.”
That is wrong.
The piece of land in question is more or less triangle shaped.
Pie are round.
Oh, I know some scientists and mathematicians go around saying “Pie are square,” but real people know – and I mean KNOW, know from real life, not from merely theoretical musings – that pie are round.
Now I will admit that cobbler can be square, but PIE are round.
Possibly what your reporter – and editors – meant was the parcel is shaped like a “piece of pie,” and perhaps the preferred term is “wedge shaped.”
Yours sincerely,
Professor Michael Morrison
Below is the moronic version the "news"paper published:
In your edition last Saturday, you published a story on the new steeple for Ridgeview Baptist Church. Your reporter and editors said the parcel of land upon which the church sits is “pie-shaped.” That is wrong.
The piece of land in question is more or less triangle-shaped. Pies are round. Oh, I know some scientists and mathematicians go around saying “Pies are square,” but real people know – and I mean know from real life, not from merely theoretical musings – that pies are round.
Now I will admit that cobbler can be square, but pies are round. Possibly what your reporter and editors meant was the parcel is shaped like a “piece of pie,” and perhaps the preferred term is “wedge-shaped.”
Any of us who have written letters to the editor know what he means.
Here is an example. In early February, 2005, I wrote a whimsical, tongue-in-cheek pontification to the Chattanooga (Tennessee) Times Free Press. Everything was spelled correctly, all the punctuation was just as it should be, and the grammar and style were perfect for what was intended.
Editor, Times Free Press
Dear Editor,
In your edition of Saturday last, you published a story on the new steeple for Ridgeview Baptist Church.
Your reporter – and editors – said the parcel of land upon which the church sits is “pie shaped.”
That is wrong.
The piece of land in question is more or less triangle shaped.
Pie are round.
Oh, I know some scientists and mathematicians go around saying “Pie are square,” but real people know – and I mean KNOW, know from real life, not from merely theoretical musings – that pie are round.
Now I will admit that cobbler can be square, but PIE are round.
Possibly what your reporter – and editors – meant was the parcel is shaped like a “piece of pie,” and perhaps the preferred term is “wedge shaped.”
Yours sincerely,
Professor Michael Morrison
Below is the moronic version the "news"paper published:
In your edition last Saturday, you published a story on the new steeple for Ridgeview Baptist Church. Your reporter and editors said the parcel of land upon which the church sits is “pie-shaped.” That is wrong.
The piece of land in question is more or less triangle-shaped. Pies are round. Oh, I know some scientists and mathematicians go around saying “Pies are square,” but real people know – and I mean know from real life, not from merely theoretical musings – that pies are round.
Now I will admit that cobbler can be square, but pies are round. Possibly what your reporter and editors meant was the parcel is shaped like a “piece of pie,” and perhaps the preferred term is “wedge-shaped.”
Monday, April 18, 2005
"News" paper?
Chattanooga is not really a small country town with no educated people.
But one might well get that impression from reading its "news" paper, the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Come visit often as we analyze and dissect what that "news" paper does and how it does it.
But one might well get that impression from reading its "news" paper, the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Come visit often as we analyze and dissect what that "news" paper does and how it does it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
