The NYT goes all 'journalists know better than readers' again

"All right" is two words.

 

Even in the South?

 

In the South it's actually three words (and a contraction): "Y'all right."

When the contractions are eight minutes apart, drive to the hospital.

 

Haven't read the article, but have to say that the concept that JR doesn't catch shit for not being a journalist or for being liberal or Canadian is laughable.

 

Liberal or Canadian?

Who said that? Of course he catches static there.

The other?

You're either lying or not paying attention.

 

Isn't liberal / Canadian redundant?

 

I swear this is the only profession where even the most expert workers in their niche have to grovel to their customers and pretend the customers know more than them.

Do brain surgeons have to pretend their patients are smarter than them about brain surgery?

Do family lawyers have to pretend their clients know more about custody law?

It's maddening.

 

Even "the most expert workers in their niche" are only rarely real experts on what it is they're covering, Dick. Your science writer for the New York Times, for example, routinely reports on things that are well beyond his/her comprehension.

 

Hell The Times football writers do that day in and day out. Judy Battista stopped playing football after high school.

 

Newspaper reporters and editors at the highest levels are expert newspaper reporters and editors.

Gina Kolata's expertise isn't particle physics, it's in presenting developments in particle physics to a general interest audience.

 

The fact that Az can quickly drop the name of an NYT Science writer, no doubt obscure to most, is proof that he is an expert

 

I am a message board expert. (And charmion !!!1!)


That said, I disagree with the word 'grovel' to characterize the relationship between writers and readers.