On the Yahoo! home page there are links to various stories, presumably interpreted to be of general interest by those who run that part of the site. As to how it's decided what gets that level of highlight is beyond my sphere of knowledge, but I think it's fair to say that whatever is featured is seen by thousands (if not more) on a daily basis.
~
A couple days ago my fiancée clicked on a link ostensibly about Jessica Alba. When getting to the destination of the link it proved to be a column in the "Shine" area of the site, wherein the blogger (a staff writer who, now that I do some checking, apparently was an editor at Lucky magazine) wrote a rather snarky piece about the celebrity's recent interview in Elle magazine (wherein it is admitted that she wore a girdle for a photo shoot at some point after she had given birth).
Glancing over at the screen while she read I didn't focus on the blogger's sardonic criticisms of Ms. Alba (or heck, maybe the tone was actually sincere but meant to seem sarcastic); what my eye fell upon was subtle flaw with the punctuation in the posting. I didn't intend to notice such a thing; this sort of thing is merely the inadvertant consequence of having my brain. Being not an uncommon occurrence on the web, I quickly diverted my attention elsewhere, because when my brain focuses thusly the best course of action is a speedy diversion (where anything that distracts me will do).
The next morning when launching the browser and having Yahoo! come up, I spotted the same Jessica Alba link still as the primary featured one, and my mind, lacking an immediate distraction, recalled noticing the punctuation issue. And because I'm an idiot who can't leave well enough alone, I clicked on the link (of my own semi-volition) and read the post more closely.
It didn't get any better. (The punctuation issue I noticed previously proved not to be even the most egregious flaw.)
By this point, over 700 comments had been left in response to the post. Skimming through them they tended to be glib declarations of how vapid Jessica seemed or glib defenses of Jessica, with some glib insults peppered in putting down everyone who was commenting about a trite story on an actress. However, not a single comment touched on the blogger's poor editing.
That did not surprise me in the slightest.
And because (as I've noted already) I'm an idiot, I left a snarky comment where I feigned pity for writers who lack editors to expand their punctuation horizons. (If you have a mind that just can't leave well enough alone either, the story and my comment can be seen here--mine is the fourth one down on the page in question.) It wasn't my finest moment--not so much because it was a slightly jerk-like thing to do but because there was almost anything else I could have done with those ten minutes that would have been a better use of my time... and mind. But what was done was done.
And because (say it with me) I'm an idiot, my inexplicable brain compelled me to then spend even more time composing this post. However, in doing so, I returned to the proverbial scene of the crime, discovering the number of comments had grown to 861. Browsing the ones that came after mine, I found almost all of them to be of the same ilk as what had been the case upon my previous visit.
Almost.
I saw one comment wherein someone called out the blogger for using the term "unhumanly" (rather than, presumably, "inhumanly") and I took a moment of solace in finding some tiny evidence of another soul whose mind could not help but notice things like language and structure when it seemed the rest of the web-reading world responded to the far more obvious (albeit vacuuous) aspects of celebrity journalism.
That person has my sincere sympathy.
~
Clearly, those who select what gets spotlighted on the Yahoo! home page (and those who hire the bloggers for these sub-sections) are not such people.
They get no sympathy, but my mind has accepted the futility of lamenting such things. It may still notice them, but at least it doesn't get bothered (too much) by such instances.
I guess I may not be as much of an idiot as I could be. Perhaps there is hope for my brain.
(Still, I probably need to consider a different home page for the browser, eh?)
Oh, Doug.
ReplyDeleteTwo things come to mind:
1. Yes, you are right, that piece was a mess.
2. I certainly hope that if Useless Doug sees any blaring punctuation errors in my work he'll have the unflinching ablility to let me know. No, really.
jenji
Well, technically, your first point features two independent clauses that in an academic context would not be separated by a comma; a dash or semicolon would better connote the intended meaning.
ReplyDeleteHowever, given that your comment was not being spotlighted on the Yahoo! home page, nor do I perceive you run your comments past a copy editor prior to posting, such erudite standards are inappropriate.
Wait--is that too soon?
~
It's not that writers who make errors on the web should be mercilessly mocked (especially when they are merciless mocking celebrities); it's that what gets thousands of eyes directed to it should have someone make some modicum of effort to catch them.
Of course, my real point was that it's a curse to think as my brain does.
ReplyDeleteThanks for continuing to put up with that (as evidenced by your repeated visits).
Due to the amBushed economy most newspapers and other media outlets are cutting staff to save money. Usually the first ones to go are copy editors. The reporter is expected to proofread his own copy and correct as needed.
ReplyDeleteI love it when someone complains about how unprofessional blogs are. Proofreading my own work is hard because I know in my head what I want to say, but when editing I overlook a mistake because my mind has inserted the missing word or has automatically corrected my spelling error.
So without copy editors, so-called "professional" writers are just as handicapped as I am.
You said you regretted posting that comment on that site. I think I was brilliant satire. When I clicked on the link, there was one intelligent comment in a sea of pointless POV's. I laughed. So it's a good thing you did.
Ray
PS: So how many mistakes did you spot, Doug? Or are you considering my stylistic riffs errors?
Thanks, Ray.
ReplyDeletep.s. I'm spent when it comes to noticing such things, so the internet is on its own for a while.