Running OOPS! thread

[Boom_70]

Always enjoyed the "Roasted Nuts" headline in The Trentonian
about a fire at mental hospital

 

[Stoney]

Can anyone make any friggin sense out of this ESPN sentence:

Jackson will join play-by-play commentator Mike Breen and fellow analyst Jeff Van Gundy, reuniting the trio that broadcast the NBA Finals for five consecutive years starting in 2011.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10945937/mark-jackson-former-golden-state-warriors-coach-returns-espn-game-analyst

So have they now just eliminated the title of editor altogether over there?

 

[spikechiquet]

Can anyone make any friggin sense out of this ESPN sentence:

Jackson will join play-by-play commentator Mike Breen and fellow analyst Jeff Van Gundy, reuniting the trio that broadcast the NBA Finals for five consecutive years starting in 2011.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10945937/mark-jackson-former-golden-state-warriors-coach-returns-espn-game-analyst

So have they now just eliminated the title of editor altogether over there?

<img src="http://edushyster.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/barbie1.jpg">

 

[spikechiquet]

Can anyone make any friggin sense out of this ESPN sentence:

Jackson will join play-by-play commentator Mike Breen and fellow analyst Jeff Van Gundy, reuniting the trio that broadcast the NBA Finals for five consecutive years starting in 2011.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10945937/mark-jackson-former-golden-state-warriors-coach-returns-espn-game-analyst

So have they now just eliminated the title of editor altogether over there?

AP has similar line...but it actually makes sense.

 

[MNgremlin]

One is Chuck Knoblauch, one is Scott Erickson

 

[MNgremlin]

 

[JC]

Thought this was anothe Duggars thread

 

[MNgremlin]

Can tell the Venditte thing was a last-second rush job. In addition to the grammatical error, also had a poorly written cutline and a terrible framing of the pictures.

 

[Riptide]

Venditte, ever versatile (not that one), also is setting an sj.com record for most threads with the same photo.

 

[MNgremlin]

Venditte, ever versatile (not that one), also is setting an sj.com record for most threads with the same photo.

Sorry, I rarely, if ever, make my way to the Anything Goes board. Didn't realize it was already posted.

 

[Riptide]

Sorry, I rarely, if ever, make my way to the Anything Goes board. Didn't realize it was already posted.

No foul there. Everyone's posting it!

 

[Steak Snabler]

 

[UPChip]

The 'amphibious' mistake has gotten a bizarre amount of mileage for an otherwise-unremarkable headline goof.

 

[Riptide]

The 'amphibious' mistake has gotten a bizarre amount of mileage for an otherwise-unremarkable headline goof.

Unremarkable? Pretty big goof when the correct word is right there in the second graf.
On top of that, it's a laughable gaffe. In the old days, it would have been milked for yuks on Leno's show.

 

[Riptide]

Sure, we’re a little red in the face. It’s one thing to have a slip
of the tongue, it’s another to put a mistake into print, and it’s
still another to see that mistake splayed across the World Wide Web.
And to think: Just a few weeks ago we were Internet heroes, showing
the courage and temerity to publish a letter about farts. Now, we’re
lowly Internet zeros, publishing unconsciously about frogs.

Our view: Big frogging mistake - East Oregonian

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

I think worse than the mistake is the ME's brushing it off as a "silly little mistake."

 

[Matt Stephens]

I think worse than the mistake is the ME's brushing it off as a "silly little mistake."

Yeah, but what else are you supposed to do? It was a bad mistake (not that there are good ones), but as an editor you want to move past it and not play it up as a bigger deal than it already is. Handle it internally and move on.

 

[BurnsWhenIPee]

I'd hope you could do better to instill confidence in your readers than to basically shrug your shoulders at the notion that one of your professional journalists doesn't know the difference between ambidextrous and amphibious.

I agree you don't want to overreact, but it's possible to underreact and make yourself look bad, too. I'd prefer silence to the "Ehhh" reaction that ME had.

 

[Ace]

I'd hope you could do better to instill confidence in your readers than to basically shrug your shoulders at the notion that one of your professional journalists doesn't know the difference between ambidextrous and amphibious.

I agree you don't want to overreact, but it's possible to underreact and make yourself look bad, too. I'd prefer silence to the "Ehhh" reaction that ME had.

There is little editors at some (most) papers can do now but shrug because they know they don't have the editing staff left to fix stuff like that (or avoid it in the first place).

 

[Riptide]

I think worse than the mistake is the ME's brushing it off as a "silly little mistake."

Ahh, rest assured they're embarrassed. But a little humor doesn't hurt when the mistake harms nobody.