Yet More Misleading and/or Discombobulating Prose from Overworked (or Nonexistent?) Editors
Who's Holding Down the Fort at the Nation's Editing Departments? Perhaps Nobody; Even A.I. Editors Might do Better than This
Yet more examples of the lack of will or ability on the part of the members of the press to write or edit clearly:
This reminds me of what an employee asked at an Enron meeting of the company leadership (paraphrasing): “What I want to know is: Are you on crack?!? If you are, that explains a lot; if you’re not, I suggest you start!”
Three errors in one short article; granted, the “suspended” catch is possibly a bit “ticky-tacky,” but the other two for sure are examples of bad or nonexistent editing.
“Russia general”? I think they meant Russian genera, but even more confusing is the “served as the top commander for Ukraine” part. It makes it sound like the general, although Russia[n], served on the Ukraine side of the conflict. Reading the article shows, though, that no, it should simply be, “served as the top commander in Ukraine” instead.
Putin’s Revenge, or a coincidence?
The Packers writer must be a city slicker if he can’t tell the difference between Quack-quack-splash and Honk-honk-hiss.
And here’s one from a loco (I mean local) newspaper, namely The Monterey County Weekly:
This isn't the fault of the publisher of the Almanac, but I couldn't resist pointing out the double redundancy in the sign. An appointment is, by definition, scheduled, so a "scheduled appointment" is redundant; not only that, a "pre-scheduled appointment" also makes no sense or is at best redundant. The standard “By Appointment Only” would/should suffice.
A flag “glies”? At first I wondered if maybe this was an obscure word for what a flag does when it is handheld as opposed to flying (flies) from a flagpole, but there doesn’t seem to be any such word, so apparently it’s a typo.
Another redundancy (“gilded” means covered with gold, so “gilded in Gold” is gilding the lily).
Lawnchaired? What?!?
This is not a grammatical or spelling error; it’s a “you got it backwards” error: the title of the article (although I agree with it) is actually diametrically opposed / 180 degrees opposite, of the point the article makes. Someday I will write a rebuttal supporting the view of the article’s (misleading) title.
Johnny Can’t Count (25, not 24)
