Weird News

[glatt]

So is it a typo or a misprint?

A typo would probably be the fault of the agency and a misprint would be the fault of the printer. If it's the fault of the printer, then it should be fixed for free. The agency is saying it will cost money to fix it, so that tells me it's the agency's fault. So why even mention the printer's name or use the word "misprint?" The story should clearly state that the agency gave out the wrong phone number and not even mention the printer or the word "print."

Why do I even care? It's the last sentence that tries to sound all ominous that the printer refused to comment. Like that makes them guilty or something.

[Flint]

Why do I even care? It's the last sentence that tries to sound all ominous that the printer refused to comment. Like that makes them guilty or something.

We're conditioned to assume that a news story is a compact summary of the relevant material, which has been scoured over by an editor to remove superfluous verbage; therefore we assume that any sentences contained are actually pertinent to the story.

One of my least favorite tricks of the journalistic trade is to include a total non sequitur in the story, and let the assumed reason for including the sentence create a connection that doesn't exist, or can't be demonstrated directly.

This one is very popular: "couldn't be reached for comment" equals "GUILTY AS HELL."

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

We're conditioned to assume that a news story is a compact summary of the relevant material, which has been scoured over by an editor to remove superfluous verbage; therefore we assume that any sentences contained are actually pertinent to the story.

One of my least favorite tricks of the journalistic trade is to include a total non sequitur in the story, and let the assumed reason for including the sentence create a connection that doesn't exist, or can't be demonstrated directly.

This one is very popular: "couldn't be reached for comment" equals "GUILTY AS HELL."

Flint:

Since the reader creates that connection only in his own head, how much of the responsibility for the unsupported conclusion does he bear?