It is JON Lester, right?

[Moderator1]

Not John?
I ask because it is John in the July 6 issue of SI.

Not to pick on SI when everybody is making mistakes. But as I've noted several times - SI used to be about perfect. I played a game as a kid trying to find a typo, a mistake, anything. And never could.

 

[GB-Hack]

Affirmative.

 

[mediaguy]

I wouldn't say it's an every-week deal now, but it's pretty close. Names of established players being wrong is just embarrassing. Like my friend here, who played for the Pottsville Maroons ...

 

[EagleMorph]

Or like last week, when Dale Earnhardt became Dale Earnhart.

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Joe Mauer feature a few weeks ago had a photo of him with a woman. No cutline, no mention in the story.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Old news, now.

A shame . . .

. . . but old news . . . and they're not going to pay up to make it right with enough people
who know what they're looking at, sooooo . . . end of story.

 

[clutchcargo]

Glad everyone on this thread is throwing perfectos every night with their own copy and captions.

Oh, wait a minute, SI is a big-shot publication everyone idolizes and which used to walk on water, and now the world is falling apart at SI HQ.

C'mon folks, give it a rest, and quit salivating over every snafu at SI. Your inferiority complexes are showing.

 

[Charlie Brown]

Years ago, for many years, rare were the kinds of mistakes that show up today with a frequency that is not alarming by other publications' standards but is by the bar SI set for itself in its prime. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out. It's a way of paying tribute to a level of greatness and lamenting its passing into mere good.

 

[clutchcargo]

I hear you, CB, but the impression I get is that some of these folks here do a better job and spend more time scrutinizing SI copy than they do their own. If they kept their eyes on their own work, their readers might be more apprecitaive.

 

[BYH]

I hear you, CB, but the impression I get is that some of these folks here do a better job and spend more time scrutinizing SI copy than they do their own. If they kept their eyes on their own work, their readers might be more apprecitaive.

Really? You gleaned all that from a bunch of one-line answers about mistakes in recent SIs? Really? Wow.

It really is as simple as Charlie Brown said. People are lamenting what SI once was and what it is now.

 

[Tucsondriver]

I just resubscribed to SI a few weeks ago because it was cheap enough to do so on Amazon. First thing I noticed was how thin it is compared to my high school days. I was reading the "lineup" page on the July 6 issue and found a typo 2 minutes. Tease for what I thought was an excellent Adrian Gonzalez feature reads: "No only is the Padres slugger a hero in his own Tijuana..."

Anyway, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, fewer eyeballs = fewer checks = way more gaffes.

 

[mediaguy]

We're not scrutinizing SI copy. We're reading a popular magazine. We post threads when we see stories we like there and think others should read. In the course of doing so, if we find silly mistakes, I think it's fair game. I'm not mercilessly dogging the local weekly ...

 

[clutchcargo]

I just resubscribed to SI a few weeks ago because it was cheap enough to do so on Amazon. First thing I noticed was how thin it is compared to my high school days. I was reading the "lineup" page on the July 6 issue and found a typo 2 minutes. Tease for what I thought was an excellent Adrian Gonzalez feature reads: "No only is the Padres slugger a hero in his own Tijuana..."

Anyway, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, fewer eyeballs = fewer checks = way more gaffes.

I also subscribe to their sister magazine, Time, and it's mind-boggling how thin it has become. Ad sales nosediving.

Yet, a couple months ago, they ran an essay whose tone can only be described as snide and condescending near the front of the magazine about newspapers going out of business, filing bankruptcy, losing ad buys, etc., then giving a list of reasons for this happening, basically pointing out how stupid our industry is. Maybe they are right, but how can they say all that without turning the spotlight onto themselves and their own miserable downfall???? They are a part of this, too.

 

[forever_town]

C'mon folks, give it a rest, and quit salivating over every snafu at SI. Your inferiority complexes are showing.

Hardly. Sports Illustrated is one more symbol of what happens when the suits at the top cut beyond bone and their cuts affect the product.

Many of the people on here are frustrated with what has happened to a once proud product that has been allowed to decline precipitously because revenue dollars are dramatically lower.

 

[Moderator1]

Glad everyone on this thread is throwing perfectos every night with their own copy and captions.

Oh, wait a minute, SI is a big-shot publication everyone idolizes and which used to walk on water, and now the world is falling apart at SI HQ.

C'mon folks, give it a rest, and quit salivating over every snafu at SI. Your inferiority complexes are showing.

No clutch, I never did throw perfectos. Neither did my section, no matter how hard we tried. That's why SI amazed me so much. You could never find a damn typo.

 

[clutchcargo]

Glad everyone on this thread is throwing perfectos every night with their own copy and captions.

Oh, wait a minute, SI is a big-shot publication everyone idolizes and which used to walk on water, and now the world is falling apart at SI HQ.

C'mon folks, give it a rest, and quit salivating over every snafu at SI. Your inferiority complexes are showing.

No clutch, I never did throw perfectos. Neither did my section, no matter how hard we tried. That's why SI amazed me so much. You could never find a damn typo.

Moddy--glad I got your attention. Any chance you can put a freeze or whatever you call on on that ongoing Gannett thread that has over 1,000 postings and start a new one? Just to give it a fresh start. I'm not alone in thinking this. Thanks.

 

[Moderator1]

Gannett and baseball, both growing beyond their limits.
So that's why you posted that contrarian crap!?!?!?!!

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

If you do it, then we won't have to look at the wrong form of "lay off" in the subject line anymore.

 

[clutchcargo]

Gannett and baseball, both growing beyond their limits.
So that's why you posted that contrarian crap!?!?!?!!

Huh?