tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295689543166080175.post393106659187537905..comments2014-09-23T02:02:04.052-07:00Comments on The Chocolate Interrobang: [sigh] ...and it was written by a "journalist"Karen Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13177791730943410658noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295689543166080175.post-9162112309594405882008-01-17T23:39:00.000-08:002008-01-17T23:39:00.000-08:00On behalf of John King, "OUCH!"On behalf of John King, "OUCH!"NRFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10313572676780364282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295689543166080175.post-89040927951701948122008-01-17T08:45:00.000-08:002008-01-17T08:45:00.000-08:00Silly of us to belabor the point of Hannah's well-...Silly of us to belabor the point of Hannah's well-intentioned misunderstanding. It's not that any of us are silly enough to expect the mainstream media to provide <I>actual</I> interviews with <I>actual</I> real context, it's that said media in the person of Mr. King outright admits that the purpose of his interview couldn't be understood by watching the cut CNN chose to show. <BR/><BR/>But the point of <I>this</I> blog is to address issues of grammar and language use. Karen's done an excellent and very entertaining job dissecting Mr. King's appalling email. <BR/><BR/>My concern is that Mr. King made a flailing pass at sarcasm--even bitter sarcasm--and failed miserably. Does he not understand what "irony" means? I asked Karen yesterday if anyone reads Jonathan Swift anymore. Obviously not--but he could at least read Douglas Adams if he wants a writer who can teach him to sharpen his wit. <BR/><BR/>If this is the standard CNN holds its journalists up to, can I get a job there? I could use the cash.Introvert Girlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16352147838562674682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295689543166080175.post-36622191801375347772008-01-17T07:52:00.000-08:002008-01-17T07:52:00.000-08:00For reasons I won't go into here, I have (temporar...For reasons I won't go into here, I have (temporarily) let my Salon subscription lapse; however, I do read it regularly.<BR/><BR/>I also subscribe to Harper's and The Nation.<BR/><BR/>And I often read a number of other online columnists and bloggers, including Dan Froomkin, Digby, Firedoglake, TalkingPointsMemo, and several bloggers at the Huffington Post, among others. And, of course, Glenn Greenwald's blog. When I can, I make a small donation to one or another of them. I have time for all of these because I don't have cable, and don't watch much network news, except on PBS.<BR/><BR/>The actual point of the post was to examine the care that John King, a public figure in his own mind anyway, puts into his email correspondence. One would expect that someone who makes a living with words, would take more care. And this blog exists because a group of us wanted to talk about language on occasion without derailing Greenwald's blog. <BR/><BR/>I have a much lower-level job than King, but I do edit all of my emails carefully and make sure that they are grammatically correct as much as possible, because I'm aware that what I send out reflects not just on me, but on my employer. More importantly, I would not push SEND after composing an email while in a rage. A little more circumspection in his email, but less in his interviews would, in my opinion, make King more worthy of respect.Karen Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13177791730943410658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295689543166080175.post-21261947307063972962008-01-17T07:14:00.000-08:002008-01-17T07:14:00.000-08:00It is unfortunate that Hannah would so completely ...It is unfortunate that Hannah would so completely misunderstand the author's intent of this post. And most unfortunate that Hannah would make such an unwarranted assumption about the author's habits regarding research and what sources the author uses to gain information.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how Hannah came to those conclusions but I do know for a fact that Karen, the author of the post, is very active in online discussions on a number of online sites.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of the post, in my view, was to highlight a screaming example of shoddy, irrelevant, misleading journalism. Journalism that is regularly taking place on our most accessible and viewed or read sources in the main stream media. Sources that unfortunately are where the majority of the American public gets their information and misinformation. Karen's post helps to expose how inadequate this one example of main stream media programing was, and expose the 'Star' journalist who was the face of the example. <BR/><BR/>Also, Hannah, if you had paid closer attention while reading the post you might have noticed that Karen's post is in direct relation to John King's email. An email that was published on Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon. Aka, an online site offering "a pertinent online subscription" to readers.Kitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03043572831042142545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295689543166080175.post-27296851153866140122008-01-17T06:21:00.000-08:002008-01-17T06:21:00.000-08:00My main concern, upon reading this post, is that y...My main concern, upon reading this post, is that you actually expect the full context of an interview to appear in a TV airing of it. TV news is infamous for not telling the whole story, let alone for providing that story with context or background. If your only news source is television, I <I>would</I> suggest supplemental research, even if that only consists of reading a few pertinent online subscriptions.<BR/><BR/>WordLily<BR/>http://wordlily.wordpress.comwordlilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16617198229586896776noreply@blogger.com