![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mr. Orwell, we can't be expected to hold your table if you aren't going to show up on time
From the Chicago Tribune, on the same day that John "background search? What backgrou nd search?" Ashcroft, the nation's highest law enforcement official, appeared before congress to discuss his two current talking points:
1. We don't have to set up a central database of reports from concerned busybodies and volunteer law enforcement off i cials not bound by any fussy old amendments to respect the rights of their neighbors if congress is going to be all touchy about it. We can just forward it straight to the FBI so they can start a file.
and
2. It would be a complete violation of the p ri vacy of law-abiding gun buyers to let law enforcement look at the records they are required by law to gather. We should shred them as soon as they come in.
If needs be, we can have the concerned neighbors toss the foul foreign devil's house for guns wh ile pretending to borrow sugar.
Note and addendum: It has been pointed out to me by a detail-oriented young relative-in-law that I neglected to include this link.
But I digress.
From the Chicago Tribune: a reader points out in a letter to the public editor that he heard the president's speech, and that what the paper put within quotes as the president's words don't match what he ac tually said.
Don Wycliff responds:
"Ideally, we would have a president so articulate that we would never be in doubt as to what he said. In reality, we have one who regularly mispronounces . . . . This confronts us with the question whether our purp ose is to transmit to readers what the president means when he speaks out or to simply relate what he says. I have always felt that transmitting meaning is paramount . . . .
"Unless his faulty locution becomes a story in itself, we work on the assumption that we do the greatest service to our readers by letting them know what the person meant to say. That, after all, is what determines what he will ultimately do and how he'll affect the readers."
No, no, no, no, no.
sorry about that.
If you want to tell the reader what you think the president meant, go on ahead, if your editorial judgment is such that you believe that the president actually meant to say something coherent or understood what he was saying or didn't just mangle a speech so meone else gave him.
You do not. You. do. not. Amongst the things you do not do is. Not done by you is. figure out what you think the president meant to say, rephrase what he did say to reflect that and put the resulting "quote" in quotes.
You just fuc king don't.
Pace Janet Malcolm, it may be legal but it ain't fucking right and a newspaper, or something that purports to be one, has no business doing it.
One wonders if the Trib reported the famous Clinton fingerwagging incident with the quote "I have decided not to discuss my relationship with That Woman on advice of counsel."e›
From the Chicago Tribune, on the same day that John "background search? What backgrou nd search?" Ashcroft, the nation's highest law enforcement official, appeared before congress to discuss his two current talking points:
1. We don't have to set up a central database of reports from concerned busybodies and volunteer law enforcement off i cials not bound by any fussy old amendments to respect the rights of their neighbors if congress is going to be all touchy about it. We can just forward it straight to the FBI so they can start a file.
and
2. It would be a complete violation of the p ri vacy of law-abiding gun buyers to let law enforcement look at the records they are required by law to gather. We should shred them as soon as they come in.
If needs be, we can have the concerned neighbors toss the foul foreign devil's house for guns wh ile pretending to borrow sugar.
Note and addendum: It has been pointed out to me by a detail-oriented young relative-in-law that I neglected to include this link.
But I digress.
From the Chicago Tribune: a reader points out in a letter to the public editor that he heard the president's speech, and that what the paper put within quotes as the president's words don't match what he ac tually said.
Don Wycliff responds:
"Ideally, we would have a president so articulate that we would never be in doubt as to what he said. In reality, we have one who regularly mispronounces . . . . This confronts us with the question whether our purp ose is to transmit to readers what the president means when he speaks out or to simply relate what he says. I have always felt that transmitting meaning is paramount . . . .
"Unless his faulty locution becomes a story in itself, we work on the assumption that we do the greatest service to our readers by letting them know what the person meant to say. That, after all, is what determines what he will ultimately do and how he'll affect the readers."
No, no, no, no, no.
sorry about that.
If you want to tell the reader what you think the president meant, go on ahead, if your editorial judgment is such that you believe that the president actually meant to say something coherent or understood what he was saying or didn't just mangle a speech so meone else gave him.
You do not. You. do. not. Amongst the things you do not do is. Not done by you is. figure out what you think the president meant to say, rephrase what he did say to reflect that and put the resulting "quote" in quotes.
You just fuc king don't.
Pace Janet Malcolm, it may be legal but it ain't fucking right and a newspaper, or something that purports to be one, has no business doing it.
One wonders if the Trib reported the famous Clinton fingerwagging incident with the quote "I have decided not to discuss my relationship with That Woman on advice of counsel."e›
