There are many things that get my hackles up, but I have to say the most annoying thing to me is people who are "professionals" but who clearly have little knowledge of the subject they're supposed experts in. What I'm thinking of here can be found at Photoshop Disasters, where it appears that no one actually takes photographs anymore, but just grabs old ones and smushes them together and cries "Ta-da!"
What gets me the worst is the journalists. These people are supposed to love the language, to know it intimately, to experience the joy of words. But no, they just do it because they got the right degree and their daddies knew somebody. I mean, how could an editor not fire a reporter for using a phrase like "grizzly murder" (seen that one twice) or not knowing the difference between "lay" and "lie" (as in this article on an guy who murdered an abortion doctor: "...including photos of Tiller laying on the floor of the church after he had been shot....")
Some call me a prescriptionist -- you know who you are -- but I will stick to my guns on this one and say that if your job is communication, you'd better know language. Even the nit-picky stuff.
I going to go ahead and blow your mind here: I agree with you. And to go one further, whether or not the journalist makes the mistake - because his job is to investigate, not really be flowery with the language - these mistakes should never get past professional editors.
Don't worry, this doesn't mean I still don't think that everyday usage should be held up to the same prescriptionist microscope though.
Also, is there another post planned about Dr. Tiller's death or are you content with commenting on "lay" and "lie"?
Posted by: cro | January 26, 2010 at 09:43 AM
Indeed, my mind is blown! And you are right -- the blames LIES even more heavily on the editors. (I would like to state for the record that I do not as a habit correct people about lie and lay in conversation.)
I wasnt planning a post on the murder itself, as I think anyone who reads the blog knows where I stand and how I feel about the issue. Do you think theres something there worth discussing?
Posted by: alejo699 | January 26, 2010 at 09:54 AM
On photo, it's the other way around: digital photography made everyone believe they were competent photographers. The incompetence is just spreading.
As for the news, the same mechanism is at work: as anyone can get a blog, anyone can believe themselves journalists.
The mediocrity was always there, but now it has a voice and is eating away at the mainstream. What's needed is a negative feedback mechanism of sorts that enables the good to sort itself out of the mediocre naturally. Wikipedia vs. Google if I'm making any sense.
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | January 26, 2010 at 02:57 PM
Good point, Bertrand. But will policing the amateurs make the ignorant lazy bastards at AP shape up? Im not sure how that would work.
Posted by: alejo699 | January 27, 2010 at 09:09 AM
It's not really about policing the way I see it. It's about setting up mechanisms that make the best quality rise above the noise. Once that exists, and it will, AP are just going to fade into irrelevance. They're dodos.
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | January 27, 2010 at 02:38 PM
So the blogosphere will replace paid reporters and editors? Ive heard that theory, but do you believe everything you read on Wikipedia?
Posted by: alejo699 | January 27, 2010 at 03:45 PM
Not the blogosphere as it exists today of course :) it has no mechanism to make the quality float to the top. It's chaos. Wikipedia gives a hint at such mechanisms: it's not foolproof but it's about a million times more reliable than Google on its own. I can explain next time we cross paths.
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | January 27, 2010 at 04:38 PM