Has the New York Times fired all its editors?
Bookworm on Jun 12 2011 at 9:46 pm | Filed under: Media matters
It begins with the New York Times hiring people to plow through Palin’s emails. And it ends, at least for today, with an article about children whose behavior doesn’t conform to their gender, in which the Times makes an egregious grammatical error:
At first, Harry’s father had a hard time watching his son twirl around in princess wear. But his gift of the Barbie symbolized acceptance; Harry’s joyous gasp indicated that the little boy intuitively understood. “We are following his lead and supporting him for who he wants to be,” said Lee, who, like [sic] other parents interviewed for this article, did not want to be fully identified in order to protect their [sic] children [sic].
Does no one at the Times know that, if you have a singular subject (“Lee”), you have to have a singular indefinite pronoun (“his,” not “their”). The same goes for the object of the indefinite pronoun, which should also be singular as it refers to Lee’s child, not the “children” of “other parents.” The fundamental problem is that both the writer and editor managed to miss the fact that “like other parents interviewed for this article” is a subordinate clause. Worse, “like” is shoddy, slangy subordinate conjunction. Did neither writer nor editor ever see the old Winston cigarette advertisements? To be both elegant and grammatically correct, the second sentence in the paragraph above should read as follows:
“We are following his lead and supporting him for who he wants to be,” said Lee, who, in common with [or "as is true for" or something equally elegant] other parents interviewed for this article, did not want to be fully identified in order to protect his [sic] child.
In addition to abandoning fact-based, superficially objective journalism, the New York Times has apparently fired those writers and editors with a minimal grasp of the English language.
If you’re interested in better grammar than the Times’ articles (although I’ll admit to a few stray typos), try The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.
Related posts:
- New York Times editors missed this one
- This is the New York Times reporting
- The London Times calls out the New York Times for double standards
Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “Has the New York Times fired all its editors?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One of the reasons why I gave up reading the NYT and most other newspapers was because they mangle the English language. I don’t have the time to parse the badly written crap they try to pass off as news, let alone try to find the buried ledes or figure out what facts they’ve omitted to fit their “narrative.”
And one of the reasons the Zachs have become such a turnoff on this site is their hilarious mangling of grammatical English. It’s hard to take the world’s smartest doomsdayers seriously when 50 percent of the time they can’t figure out a singular from a plural.
Their writers functioning under the whip of the helot editors were publicly educated, Martel. Got to give em cred for knowing how to use spellcheck at least.
It’s hard to take the world’s smartest doomsdayers seriously when 50 percent of the time they can’t figure out a singular from a plural.
The United States vs Those United States?
Hey, I bet if they hire some Japanese speakers, their Engrish will be so much more entertaining than the NYT pap.
Charles Martel @ 1 : It’s hard to take the world’s smartest doomsdayers seriously when 50 percent of the time they can’t figure out a singular from a plural.
Every once in a while, Sonia Sotomayor joins the Z-Team when she has time… so many recusals due to her questionable lower court decision, so much time in her private chambers, twiddling her thumbs while the other robes hear cases and write opinions, you know?
It’s usually pretty easy to tell when she’s taken over the Z-Chair.
—-
Comment #11 13 Jun 2011 at 1:20 pm
Ymarsakar
Dropping three tons of napalm over the UCal Berkley Campus at 1 pm should take care of that “Save The World” protest very efficiently, with minimal unwanted casualties. Any lucky enough to be on the perimeter can be quickly dispatched by operatives trained in TFT. Three should suffice. Leave no survivors.
Comment #12 13 Jun 2011 at 1:51 pm
Zachriel
Puto! Maricon! Ay de mi, yo no puedo creer que escribe! If this Wise Latina knew where you lived, why I’d march right- no, get your hands off me! No-
Comment #13 13 Jun 2011 at 1:52 pm
Zachriel
Napalm is known for its tendency to adhere to the skin even when aflame. It is said to be quite unpleasant.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/napalm+burn
Z would have said it was environmentally carbon positive as a pollutant ; )
Btw, my munitions choice would be this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRASCHJe2Q
Except larger in yield. Napalm was used primarily because it was an area of effect weapon that didn’t require pinpoint precision given the number of burning shrubs down in Vietnam. On concrete, and given the superior overhead protection of UC Berkley’s cement and steel buildings, an FAE would be a much better choice for munitions deployment.
As for timing, the time would be when all the targets are inside buildings, as the explosive overpressure will stack with the building collapse to increase fatality percentages. That’s either lunch when they are out to get food, during classes, or during the evenings when they’re doing recreational stuff in the rec centers. It depends on the intel of target behaviors.
I wrote this just in case if people wondered what would be a pragmatic look at the joke ; )
I knew I couldn’t get your “part” right, Ymar. But no one else can send the Z-Team into helpless spasmodic outrage quite like you!
Ymar, I am not the Zachs, but the Zachs have authorized this outburst of outrage against you:
Why, why, you beast! You, you poo-poo head!
Signed, the contributor on this blog voted to as “The Physician We’d Most to Like Have by Our Bedside Delivering Rotten News” and “Bookworm Room Contributor With the Most Common Touch.”
Mike, just read your anticipatory Zach comments up in #4: ROFLMAO!
Does no one at the Times know that, if you have a singular subject (“Lee”), you have to have a singular indefinite pronoun (“his,” not “their”). The same goes for the object of the indefinite pronoun, which should also be singular as it refers to Lee’s child, not the “children” of “other parents.”
No.
Pretty much no one, much less the fools at the Times, knows that rule any more. Almost everyone says “He….theirs.” And if you try to be correct and say “He…his,” some helper will interruption you to throw a “or her” in there. Yeesh.