1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

demise of "s.i." truly saddens me

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by shockey, May 27, 2009.

  1. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    just received the new issue with tom brady on the cover. EAGERLY read peter king's story on the patriots' hero.

    and this eff-up stopped me in my tracks, upsetting 'cause i catch many of these editing effups or oversights or whatever you want to call it in a mag that used to almost NEVER have them:

    "Brady has JEALOUSLY guarded his privacy...."

    JEALOUSLY? REALLY? WTF? ??? ??? ???

    obviously the correct word was "zealously." but sheesh, what an inexcusable whiff by what was once the gold standard of editing. very upsetting to this geezer.
  2. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    I've seen the word "jealously" used in that context before. I think this is the word King meant to use.

    EDIT: According to dictionary.com, the fifth definition of the word "jealous" is this: solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something. As in, the American people are jealous of their freedom.

    There are many reasons to bemoan the demise of SI. This isn't one of them.
  3. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    Yeah, Shockey, that's a catch phrase, although you know what? When you look at it again, it really doesn't make a great deal of sense.
  4. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    Actually, the usage King meant is in the dictionary. Learn something new everyday.
  5. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member

    Forget the verbiage therein, does anyone else have a problem with SI putting Tom Brady on the cover in May?
  6. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    i trust that the fifth-ranked def of jealousy may now indeed make the use correct. in that case, i suppose i should criticize peter for using it. just 'cause it's now acceptable doesn't mean it's the best choice in this case. for precisely the reason i began the thread in the first place.

    imho, anyway. i mean, it's like using a fifth-string player when a starter is available, no? why unnecessarily confound simpletons such as myself? ??? ??? ???
  7. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    You eagerly read Peter King's story. Not "anxiously." Unless you were hyperventilating as you opened the mag, hands trembling, sweat on brow.

    As long as we're being old school about definitions. :)
  8. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    I sort of agree. However, I've seen it so often in other places, I personally probably would have breezed over it without a second glance.
  9. Some Guy

    Some Guy Active Member

    Good point. Maybe he was reading the story, worried Peter might use an arcane definition of a particular word. ;)
  10. shockey

    shockey Active Member

    i stand humbly corected. AND IT'S BEEN HUMBLY FIXED. :-[ :-[ :-[
  11. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Mentioned this on another SI related thread - but between the Peavey/Peavy thing in the baseball preview and the SI.com thing in last week's issue that had the Raiders still playing in L.A. and having the Lakers playing the wrong Texas team in the conference semis - it's just not that difficult to find a mistake in an issue anymore.
  12. pseudo

    pseudo Well-Known Member

    Don't understand why you'd ask that. Nothing else (Indy/NHL+NBA playoffs) happened last week worthy of knocking Tom Terrific off the cover, did it?

    Had to laugh at a Tweet from one of the guys on the Packers beat, though: "Don't tell Favre, but I think Peter King has moved on."
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page