Thursday, July 19, 2007

Let us prey

The Wall Street Journal is well edited -- one rarely finds an error. But today, on the front page no less, a glaring, sorrowful exemplum of apostrophe abuse:

Easier to spot here:

As the Apostrophe Protection Society will maintain until the last vocable is uttered by the last humanoid, "Let's" = let us.

Could eagle-eyed Journal editors be distracted by the impending predation of Mr. Murdock?

Labels: , , , ,


Blogger Jon said...

Aren't both egregious examples o the misuse of apostrophes ?

Shouldn't the first example actually read ....

What News ?

7/19/2007 2:02 PM  
Blogger Scruggs said...

It's really hard to know what to make of this looming takeover, other than an unmitigable disaster. I've read a lot of "boutique" information journals. While some are exceptional, all depend to a large degree on the work of organizations that can fund some depth of reporting and attract some real talent with job security. Murdock only caters to solipsists, rage junkies and perpetually insecure Deciders. He can't NOT meddle. He adulterates primary sources into freak shows. The way things are now, his audience already selects out anything that might discomfort them, but there are people who do occasionally feel a need to touch base with reality.

7/20/2007 2:12 AM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

Scruggs: Murd caters to more than the above named. He caters to whoever wishes the population to be distraught over something else (DOSE).

The opinion shop at the WSJ has long undemonstratively incubated some of the fringiest loons in print.

These certifiables have lived in isolated adjacency to the best-written news organization in USiA, which up till now has had the will to hold them inside a strict wall between opinion and reportage.

The merde-ger of this Xtreme nuttery with Murd's billions is to US mainstream journalism what Bush's admin is to US government: the evacuation of all possible claim upon or pretence to legitimacy.

7/20/2007 11:04 AM  
Anonymous ahfukit said...

re Roberts, would you hesitate to promote any of his views to prominence, eg, the recent "Wake-up Call" piece featured by Bruce and Phil?

7/21/2007 12:38 AM  
Anonymous tom said...

Depends on what you mean by "his views." Roberts has a lot of them, he's had them for a long, long time. He's consistently been a claghorn of xenophobia (see him and others on and his insights into Bush and possibly the Iran agenda are in a little white chariot drawn by numerous creatures, some of whom are Reaganoid and paranoid and xenophobic. Instead of pushing his particular model of chariot, I'd look for a brand with fewer dubious ponyboys.

7/21/2007 3:46 PM  
Blogger madame said...

I am taking the liberty of stealing these photos and uploading them to the I Judge You When You Use Poor Grammar. group on FaceBook.

7/24/2007 3:17 AM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

Sounds like my kind of group.

7/24/2007 7:19 AM  
Anonymous ahfukit said...

Thanks, Tom, nicely put. How about Executive Intelligence Review? I see Cathy Fitts references that occasionally.

7/24/2007 1:22 PM  
Blogger Scruggs said...

Executive Intelligence Review? That's LaRouche's axe grinding rag. Here's a book length sample of the stuff they produce.

7/24/2007 8:39 PM  
Blogger Tom Matrullo said...

ah, It would be proper, sobering and worthy of Kubrick to discover that LL, the butt of everyone's lighter moments, did in fact have his duckies in a row. I've not yet gotten to reading Fitts as she apparently deserves to be read.

7/24/2007 9:12 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home