...and copy editors cringe...

This I found in an otherwise interesting little publication called "Eco-Structure." My apologies; I couldn't scan the whole page because it's oversized, and for some unknown reason this story was not included in the pub's online archives. Imagine that. However, since the error announces itself in the headline, I wasn't too worried about the rest of the page. Initially, I thought it was a play on words...but as I worked my way through the body copy (finding another similar error in the process), I slowly realized that yes, it was a legitimate error -- and a huge one.

Is it just that copy editors don't get paid enough? : ) That's it! If we paid copy editors what we pay brain surgeons, these errors wouldn't happen! On the other hand, that would give rise to a whole new industry...copy editor malpractice. I can see it now...spurious lawsuits...attorneys raking in thousands of dollars arguing the usage of "their" vs. "there"...witnesses weeping on the stand..."but I thought it WAS a compound modifier!"

: )

As English teachers everywhere weep...

I will be following with a more "publishing-relevant" post shortly, but I wanted to share this rather sad example of spelling gone awry. Does anyone else find such notices as painful as I do? It's enough to make me want to carry around a red pen... : (

SEO brings old news to light -- unfairly?

Poynter's E-media TidBits column today explores some of the unintended consequences of "search engine optimization" -- the process whereby ads (or, in this case, related stories) are "summoned" to a Web page because of keywords in a story or story element (headlines, cutlines, behind-the-scenes coding, etc.)

In a nutshell, the Times recently implemented a search optimization strategy that increased traffic to its site -- especially to its voluminous archives. This meant that stories from decades past suddenly appeared quite prominently in current search-engine results.

So an important question arises: is this journalistically and ethically sound practice? Can we shrug our editing shoulders and say, "Well, it's an AD or a REVENUE SOURCE, after all. I have no control over that..." In the case of The NYT, the instant sidebar material could be seen as a reporting tool, no?

Another ESPN.com Problem

To echo Ben's comments about ESPN.com seemingly being ignorant of events in the Pac-10, one of their college football writers, Mark Schlabach, wrote a story about Sam Keller a few days ago. Keller, who began the 2005 football season as ASU's starting QB before an injury ended his season, transferred to Nebraska at the beginning of last season after he was named the ASU starter for 2006 by then-coach Dirk Koetter and then replaced just two days later in favor of Rudy Carpenter. It was a major story here and, in some ways, haunted ASU throughout last season.

Keller is now going to be the starter at Nebraska this year, and Schlabach writes this story portraying Keller to be the wronged man in the ASU story. The problem is, he never attempts to get any ASU perspective in the story. He mentions off-hand how many ASU players went to Koetter after he named Keller the starter and said they felt that Carpenter was the better choice to lead the team, but it seems he made no attempt to talk to any of those players. Also, Keller's dad is quoted in the article saying that Carpenter didn't have what it took to be "the guy" on a football team, but again, there are no comments from Carpenter in the story. He does say in the story that Koetter could not be reached for comment, but even if had talked to Koetter, that does not get an ASU perspective in the story, as Koetter was fired by ASU and now works as an NFL assistant. Finally, he mentions the RUMORS (not substantiated facts by any means) that Carpenter threatened to transfer, which led to Koetter changing his mind. However, he does not at all address the many rumors that have circulated around ASU about Keller and his off-field behavior. Overall, I just found it to be a very irresponsible story that basically read like a press release for Keller, making him the fallen hero and everyone at ASU (Koetter and Carpenter in particular) the villains. Sorry to go on and on, but this story just frustrates me as an ASU football fan because many outside Tempe will read this and believe they are getting the whole story when they are not.

No firm definition for "quote"

Deborah Howell, ombudsman for the Washington Post, captured several lines of reasoning over how quotes should be treated: literal? Cleaned up? Should their highest purpose be to convey the essence of what was meant? See how your thoughts match up with some of your journalism colleagues.

Pac-10 Basketball Preview

I know that it is one of my major journalistic pet peeves, but I cannot stand when basic facts are wrong in articles. ESPN.com is running off-season previews of college basketball right now and the Pac-10 preview calls Arizona State guard Jerren Shipp a "frosh Pac-10 legacy." He is a sophomore. That is not something ESPN is unaware of; his name is hyperlinked to his college stats and it lists him as a sophomore. He played in 30 games last season and averaged 30 minutes per game. During the season, he played against his brother, Josh (a guard/forward for UCLA), and the television commentators (from Fox Sports Net, if memory serves) frequently mentioned that Jerren was the third Shipp brother to play in the Pac-10. The third brother, Joe, played at California.

It really hurts the credibility of the article when the basic facts are incorrect. The expert predictions and commentaries must be taken with a grain of salt because they clearly are not too familiar with the Pac-10.

LL World Series

Well, my understanding of this blog is that we are supposed to post on any journalistic/editing concerns we encounter, so hopefully I am on the right track. Anyway, I was just reading AZ Central and I saw an article about the Chandler National baseball team that is playing in the Little League World Series. Now, this is certainly a great accomplishment for those children and their coaches, but should this really be covered in the news? I would say that putting these kids on national TV (the games are on ESPN and I think the final is on ABC) and making them front-page news in the papers only leads to the development of an arrogant attitude that many people criticize in today's pro athletes.

Of course, young athletes having a sense of entitlement is more than just a journalistic issue. Society often builds up these talented youngsters to the point where people like LeBron James or Michelle Wie become household names before they even reach adulthood. However, I do think the media plays a big role in that. If young kids didn't see their names in the paper or faces on TV for playing a sport, they may have an easier time staying humble. Don't misunderstand me, I love sports and I certainly think they are newsworthy, but I'm just not sure that Little League baseball, Pop Warner football, etc. with 10- or 11-year old kids should be in the newspapers or on television. That's just my opinion on the issue, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone agrees or disagrees.