Skip to main content

In Sunday's paper, a front-page article described certain legislation being proposed in the U.S. Senate. Here is a link to the article.

http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20070812/NEWS/70812017

Note that part of the headline states, "Proposed legislation would privatize TVA."

BUT--further down in the article, this information is provided: "A provision of the bill calls for a study into the privatization of TVA."

The last-quoted item is correct. The bill proposes to STUDY the concept of privatization of TVA. But, obviously, that is NOT what the ineptly-rendered headline states. It is commonplace for legislation in the U.S. Congress to provide for the "study" of some issue. That is sometimes done when there is the sense on the part of those sponsoring the legislation that without the benefit of study and analysis to support a particular measure, there is little chance of gaining support for it. Thus, the bill includes a "study" provision. That, however is a far, far cry from what is stated in the headline. Privatization is NOT brought into effect by being STUDIED.

It would seem that the editorial staff and headline writer(s) of the Times Daily would be able to avoid such chronic mistakes as are typifed by this unfortunate blunder, and most especially in the case of a lead story on the front page! It remains to be seen whether they will print a teeny tiny correction on page 2, but they certainly should, at the least, do that. I have subscribed to the TD for over 25 years without interruption and I have seen very little improvement over the years in the quality of the paper as it relates to matters such as this. Just recently, articles appeared that confused "principal" with "principle" and used "tenants" instead of "tenets." These kinds of witless blunders persist even after (presumably) some alleged editor has reviewed and approved the text. Is there any hope for anything better in the future?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

UPDATE--It is now two days past the egregious TD headline blunder and still no correction printed, even though their attention has been called to this mistake both here and by telephone. If they do not print a correction, then their little corrections policy, as stated on page 2 of every edition, is just so much eyewash and BS!
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
UPDATE--It is now two days past the egregious TD headline blunder and still no correction printed, even though their attention has been called to this mistake both here and by telephone. If they do not print a correction, then their little corrections policy, as stated on page 2 of every edition, is just so much eyewash and BS!


There is a proposal to privatize TVA. It simply hasn't made it out of comittee.

As usual, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill . . . And acting like an uberdork.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
UPDATE--It is now two days past the egregious TD headline blunder and still no correction printed, even though their attention has been called to this mistake both here and by telephone. If they do not print a correction, then their little corrections policy, as stated on page 2 of every edition, is just so much eyewash and BS!


There is a proposal to privatize TVA. It simply hasn't made it out of comittee.

As usual, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill . . . And acting like an uberdork.


And, as usual, you are showing your utter disregard for the FACTS. There might be some proposal somewhere to privatize TVA, but that proposal was NOT the subject of the Senate legislation described in the TD's article. It was clearly stated in the article that the Senate legislation being discussed included provision for a "study into the privatization of TVA." The article was not about some other legislation being developed somewhere else; it was about a Senate bill that WOULD NOT, as it is written, provide for the privatization of TVA.

Now, I know you have some maladjustment of your rational processes that inhibits you from applying the rules of logic in the normal manner, so I will try to make this as plain as I can. A "study" of something is not a proposal to DO that something. For example, I might "study" the prospect of digging up and re-sodding my lawn. That "study," logically (and I know this is hard going for you, but try to stick with it), will conclude in one of three ways. I might decide to dig up my lawn and re-sod it myself. Or I might decide to hire someone else to do it. Or I might decide not to do it at all. But STUDYING what to do with my lawn is what I do before I decide what to do--or what not to do. Similarly, as regards the privatization of TVA, the gummint might "study" the prospect of privatization of that agency. The outcome of that study will be a decision either to pursue privatization through some subsequent legislation or to do nothing and let TVA remain as it is. But neither my study of my lawn situation nor the subject bill's proposed study of privatization of TVA will, of themselves bring about either the digging up and re-sodding of my lawn or the privatization of TVA.

And, as to making mountains out of molehills, I would simply state that the concept of privatizing TVA is one that has been and continues to be both highly controversial and of great interest to electricity ratepayers (residential, commercial and industrial), power distributors, local and state governments, and the entire congressional delegation of the TVA region. As such, it is no insignificant subject. If, indeed, the Senate had developed a bill that actually proposed to privatize TVA, THAT would be a very newsworthy development, one truly worthy of a headline. For the TD to have so grossly misrepresented the bill as to assert, in its headline, that such a proposal was actually IN the legislation is no trivial thing; it is a major gaffe, and it should be corrected.

If you need further help toward understanding these matters, let me know and I will try to simplify it even more for you.
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
And, as usual, you are showing your utter disregard for the FACTS. There might be some proposal somewhere to privatize TVA, but that proposal was NOT the subject of the Senate legislation described in the TD's article.


Well, HENCEFORTH to wit your maleficent attempt at subjugating the matter at hand is, at best, ODIOUS and PROVERTED!

Look, a newspaper has to come up with 40 to 50 stories every single say. Some editor has to glance at the story and make up a headline that fits with the size of the article on the page it is printed upon. Sometimes small mistakes are made. Sometimes large ones are made.

In this case, it's a pretty ridiculously small mistake (and "mistake" is arguable - it is technically a "proposal"). A correction would not change the meaning of the article one smidgen and would serve no purpose . . . Except to please pompous, self-important squeezeballs like you who can't find better things to to than find something to criticize - however insignificant - in the daily paper.

And, make no mistake, TVA SHOULD be privatized. The rest of the United States should not pay for our electricity but I'm not gonna press the matter.
When you say, "Some editor has to glance at the story and make up a headline that fits with the size of the article on the page it is printed upon. Sometimes small mistakes are made. Sometimes large ones are made," you have MISSED THE MARK entirely!

The fitting of a headline to available space is important, but of FAR MORE importance is fitting of the headline to the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of the article over which it is placed. It was NO SMALL MISTAKE to mischaracterize the very nature of the bill being described in the article. A bill that actually WOULD privatize TVA is a vastly different thing from a bill that would propose a STUDY of the privatization of TVA. And, besides, the article was one of the top two news stories on the FRONT PAGE. If any headline should be correct, a headline in that position should be! There IS something to be said for QUALITY CONTROL, notwithstanding your obviously slipshod standards!

A couple of things more--I do applaud you little exercise in vocabulary development, but "maleficent" is literally defined as "harmful," and I really do wonder what "harm" you see in that which I posted. Seems to me that being CORRECT is far less harmful than being incorrect.

Also, I just have to wonder--If you see my actions as being "at best, ODIOUS and PROVERTED," what might be your worst case characterization of them?! Seems to me that if we have any overkill on the subject at hand, it is most thoroughly exemplified by the extremes to which you have gone in your intemperate vilification!


As to what I posted being "PROVERTED," as you illiterately allege, I would appreciate it if you would explain that. What is "PROVERTED," i.e. "perverted," about contending for correctness in the media on a subject that is of considerable interest and controversy?

Perhaps you are of the ilk that was so competently portrayed by Keenan Wynn in the Stanley Kubrick's great film, Dr. Strangelove. More than once he warned a raffish but prissy Royal Air Force officer, played by Peter Sellers, against committing any "preversions."
Last edited by beternU
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
When you say, "Some editor has to glance at the story and make up a headline that fits with the size of the article on the page it is printed upon. Sometimes small mistakes are made. Sometimes large ones are made," you have MISSED THE MARK entirely!

The fitting of a headline to available space is important, but of FAR MORE importance is fitting of the headline to the ACTUAL SUBSTANCE of the article over which it is placed. It was NO SMALL MISTAKE to mischaracterize the very nature of the bill being described in the article. A bill that actually WOULD privatize TVA is a vastly different thing from a bill that would propose a STUDY of the privatization of TVA. And, besides, the article was one of the top two news stories on the FRONT PAGE. If any headline should be correct, a headline in that position should be! There IS something to be said for QUALITY CONTROL, notwithstanding your obviously slipshod standards!


See here! To wit with great pomposity and perverdity, know ye that said perscribed editors utilized flamboyancy and HYPERBOLE with which to impose upon you to procure, nay, PARLEY said newspaper from the paperbox! Herewith and toforth!

I proclaim that it worked with great aclarity and odiosity!
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
In the unlikely event that you should you elect to return to some rational mode of communication, I shall be glad to resume this dialogue.


Until you turn down your pomposity level a notch or ten, I will continue to guffaw at your pathological hatred of the TimesDaily and your profound love of yourself and your adjectives.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
In the unlikely event that you should you elect to return to some rational mode of communication, I shall be glad to resume this dialogue.


Until you turn down your pomposity level a notch or ten, I will continue to guffaw at your pathological hatred of the TimesDaily and your profound love of yourself and your adjectives.


And just WHO is it who is in love with adjectives? From your recent posts in this string:

pathological profound maleficient odious pompous "PROVERTED" self-important

You like 'em too, don't you? So when you use them, one would suppose that is altogether appropriate, but when someone else uses adjectives, that is somehow a reflection of that person's self-absorption. Must be nice to be able to draw such clear and bright lines of distinction! Or can you say, "DOUBLE STANDARD?"
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by T S C:
I think that GoFish's prolific use of adjectives was done in order to mock you. Sorry the joke was on you and you didn't get it.


But YOU got it so I'm good. Wink


You owe one BIG TIME to TSCchicken; he/she/it gave you an excuse, however flimsy, for your hypocritical performance.
quote:
Originally posted by unclegus:
buternu, why do your words all run together and I cannot understand what you are posting.


Since I maintain the usual separation between my words, the problem you have in that regard is obviously one of comprehension on your part. Perhaps you are dyslexic or even cross-eyed. You might consider getting professional attention for your problem. Far be it from me to draw any conclusions, given the limited information you have provided. A competent medical practitioner, or perhaps a psychologist, might be able to assist you in overcoming this defect. As to your failure to understand what I have posted, I can only speculate, but I suspect that your rational processes operate at a sub-normal level, since I have not posted anything particularly intricate or complex. Maybe you should first go to some childrens' forum and practice a while before you come back to commune with the adults here.
betrni, you see the problem is that you claim to know more than you actually do. You see while you try to make it apparent you are smarter than we normal people are, you lack a whole lot in the area of common sense. All the intellegence in the book cannot make up for your ignorance on the street level.
I have known a great number of people who was illiterate that are very much smarter than you think you are. If I am walking down the street, I would very much rather be aside someone who could not read than to be next to some dumb fool like you.
By the way, why haven't you came and got your sign I made for you.
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
Hey unclegus, I can give you the name of a doctor, to which, you can refer beternNOBODY. Maybe the good doctor can remove beter's head from his ass.


DHS -- this is the 2nd time today that I have literally laughed out loud and my boss asked what was wrong after I've read your comments....you are on a roll today!!! THanks!!!
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
quote:
Originally posted by DHS-86:
Hey unclegus, I can give you the name of a doctor, to which, you can refer beternNOBODY. Maybe the good doctor can remove beter's head from his ass.


DHS -- this is the 2nd time today that I have literally laughed out loud and my boss asked what was wrong after I've read your comments....you are on a roll today!!! THanks!!!


Thanks, beternNOBODY makes it easy!
'Skuse me while I whip out my English major's red pen and whup-up on your idiotic ramblings . . .

quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
A competent medical practitioner, [there should be no comma here] or *perhaps* [there should be a comma preceding and after this word] a psychologist, [there should be no comma here] might be able to assist you in overcoming this defect. As to your failure to understand what I have posted, I can only speculate, [no comma here] but I suspect that your rational processes operate at a sub-normal ["subnormal" is not hyphenated] level, [no comma] since I have not posted anything particularly intricate or complex. Maybe you should first go to some childrens' [the possessive calls for the apostrophe BEFORE the "s" dimwit!] forum and practice a while before you come back to commune with the adults here.


Also, there is supposed to be TWO spaces after a period after each sentence.

What a maroon!
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
'Skuse me while I whip out my English major's red pen and whup-up on your idiotic ramblings . . .

quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
A competent medical practitioner, [there should be no comma here] or *perhaps* [there should be a comma preceding and after this word] a psychologist, [there should be no comma here] might be able to assist you in overcoming this defect. As to your failure to understand what I have posted, I can only speculate, [no comma here] but I suspect that your rational processes operate at a sub-normal ["subnormal" is not hyphenated] level, [no comma] since I have not posted anything particularly intricate or complex. Maybe you should first go to some childrens' [the possessive calls for the apostrophe BEFORE the "s" dimwit!] forum and practice a while before you come back to commune with the adults here.


Also, there is supposed to be TWO spaces after a period after each sentence.

What a maroon!


Right on the apostrophe in the possessive of children; dead wrong on the comma business. There is a great deal of latitude in the matter of placing commas and I have have not abused discretion here.

You state that, "There is supposed to be TWO spaces after a period after each sentence."
Your verb and subject are at war here. You should have said, There ARE supposed...."

And my skin color is a whiteish tan, certainly not maroon. Oh, now it comes to me! That was your doltish and MORONIC attempt to spell "moron." Missed that one badly and ironically, as well as moronically, didn't you?

As to spacing between sentences, I trust you will spend plenty of time tracking through posts here and elsewhere to identify and excoriate he miscreants who commit such heinous errors. It is a pursuit worthy of your gifts! I have purposely left PLENTY of spacing between sentences in this post, just make it easy for to you to find the end of one sentence and the beginning of the next.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×