The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
To you Trump acolytes, still believing in him:
Imagine how sad it must be to believe scientists, historians, scholars, economists and journalists have devoted their whole lives to deceiving you, while a reality star with decades of fraud and exhaustively documented lying is your only beacon of honesty.
The above quote was copied from a Washington Post opinion poster.
Indeed, how sad and very, very stupid.
mtierney said:
Trash tabloids have to stay in business, in their view, or better yet to scoop the competing tabloid. As for the actress, getting and keeping her name and face in the news is the game plan — 18 babies a bit of a stretch though,
I don't know how you can have such disdain for tabloids when one of them (the Enquirer) has done so much to help your President (paying off porn stars that he cheated with, burying stories, etc).
mtierney said:
myths as in the title defines more than one myth — Two names linked with an “and” says couple.
DaveSchmidt said:Headlines, lacking a verb, fail to tell the story following — no action. Wouldn’t get past the copy editor.
mtierney said:You've said here before that you were once a journalist. Is that what verb-less headlines were called back then, too?
Seriously.
A headline lacking a verb?
I think that is called a title.
Suggested rewrite:
“The Tabloids Tell Myths About Celebrities in Entertainment and Politics”
Lousy headline, but, with a verb, and without the cheap shot.
I don’t see a Cheap shot in the original. It is reasonable to believe the story talks about two celebrities that have been victims of untrue reporting but these publications. That’s it. As stated before, I think your interpretation of the headline is uncommon.
DaveSchmidt said:
mtierney said:Was it the no-action title that caught your attention?
OMG, just opened the Times on my iPad, and what do I spy, right out of the gate?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/us/caleb-hanna-bio-facts-republican-gop.html
Freshman in College, Freshman in the Capitol: West Virginia’s 19-Year-Old Lawmaker
I thought it was about two people sharing a job, but I only read the title.
Red_Barchetta said:
mtierney said:I don’t see a Cheap shot in the original. It is reasonable to believe the story talks about two celebrities that have been victims of untrue reporting but these publications. That’s it. As stated before, I think your interpretation of the headline is uncommon.
myths as in the title defines more than one myth — Two names linked with an “and” says couple.
DaveSchmidt said:Headlines, lacking a verb, fail to tell the story following — no action. Wouldn’t get past the copy editor.
mtierney said:You've said here before that you were once a journalist. Is that what verb-less headlines were called back then, too?
Seriously.
A headline lacking a verb?
I think that is called a title.
Suggested rewrite:
“The Tabloids Tell Myths About Celebrities in Entertainment and Politics”
Lousy headline, but, with a verb, and without the cheap shot.
No, it's one celebrity (Anniston) as a victim, and one (Trump) getting the benefit of lies told about him that ignorant voters believed.
Red_Barchetta said:I don’t see a Cheap shot in the original. It is reasonable to believe the story talks about two celebrities that have been victims of untrue reporting but these publications. That’s it. As stated before, I think your interpretation of the headline is uncommon.
Uncommon is charitable. I'd say bizarre.
use of the Oxford comma clears up a lot of confusion. I have to admit, however, we avoid too much punctuation in headlines. Many publications for which I've worked haven't always used verbs in headlines; house style demanded comprehension above else. If the folks setting the copy understood it, that was enough litmus testing.
ml1 said:
Red_Barchetta said:Uncommon is charitable. I'd say bizarre.
I don’t see a Cheap shot in the original. It is reasonable to believe the story talks about two celebrities that have been victims of untrue reporting but these publications. That’s it. As stated before, I think your interpretation of the headline is uncommon.
I’m trying to be nice.
try harder!
Joanne, the litmus test needs to be whether the reader gets the sense of the words — not the person setting them down, presumably, the writer does 
Many of those on the factory floor are good samples of the reading public these days. It’s elitist to think they’re not; even more so now that there are fewer proofreaders actually employed by publishers.
FWIW very very few people in the trade would understand how to use tools such as the Fog Index. The current discussion proves the point.
mtierney said:
Joanne, the litmus test needs to be whether the reader gets the sense of the words — not the person setting them down, presumably, the writer does
This is true in general, but I suspect you were too acidic to be a good litmus for that one.
mtierney said:
try harder!
Your true colors for all here to see. Of course this is news to no one.
Since we’re on the topic, advance notice of the international wayzgoose (printers’ holiday):
https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/fun/proofreading-day
We don’t really need to keep the old-time custom of picnics and community games. They’re fun, but let’s face it, it’s a lot of work to coordinate! But, hey, let’s all have some fun on March 8, ensuring we write what we mean and others do too.
Is acidity a good way to avoid blowing above a 0.08?
Maybe keeping a lemon or clementine handy helps?
Robert_Casotto said:
Is acidity a good way to avoid blowing above a 0.08?
Maybe keeping a lemon or clementine handy helps?
Well, at least this post explains some of your other adventures in trolling this morning.
Klinker said:
Well, at least this post explains some of your other adventures in trolling this morning.
Don’t mind him. He’s pandering to the base.
mtierney said:
After reading today’s headline news story, guess the source. Especially interested the opinions of those who get their news by scanning headlines.
The Tabloid Myths of Jennifer Aniston and Donald Trump
It seems I had a different take on that headline than the rest of you.
I thought someone among Ms. Aniston's peers was spreading rumors that she is a Trump supporter and that she was pushing back against that.
This is Soapbox-Politics so when I come here my mind is predisposed to think politics rather than sex.
STANV said:
I thought someone among Ms. Aniston's peers was spreading rumors that she is a Trump supporter
That would be slander, wouldn't it?
thread drift: mtierney, some more Aussie writers you might like (currently featured in my local library, in Meet the Writer coffee/chat mornings)
- Sandie Docker, just got a new book out, second in the series apparently and sounds quite funny
- Rachael Johns, apparently a 'rural romance with a twist' specialist
- Josephine Moon, lives an hour and a bit up the road; sponsors Story Dogs; https://josephinemoon.com/blog/
thanks, Joanne, but my Kindle is currently very loaded! Off to sunnier climes next week, hopefully to get some R&R and read my stash. 
interesting account of the BuzzFeed debacle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/opinion/buzzfeed-layoffs.html
However, the article glossed over a major point — that inaccuracies and misleading reportage will finally catch up to bite the news media in its adds.
mtierney said:
interesting account of the BuzzFeed debacle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/opinion/buzzfeed-layoffs.html
However, the article glossed over a major point — that inaccuracies and misleading reportage will finally catch up to bite the news media in its adds.
Sad that Trump acolytes cry over real news to be inaccurate, misleading and fake while paying attention and giving gravitas to "news" outlets such as Fox News, Breitbart, Info Wars as if delivered directly from the Throne of God.
mtierney said:
interesting account of the BuzzFeed debacle:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/opinion/buzzfeed-layoffs.html
However, the article glossed over a major point — that inaccuracies and misleading reportage will finally catch up to bite the news media in its adds.
That’s a deeply flawed point. Inaccuracies and misleading reportage are not what’s killing local papers or what’s behind the cuts at BuzzFeed News.
And as much as it pains me because it’s so joyless, I’ll keep that concluding pun in mind whenever you chafe at coarse language.
If you perceived my witty pun as “coarse ,” then you have not been reading this thread or the Pope thread with any awareness at all.
Demeaning, and truly coarse comments are routinely and repetitiously aimed at me —by stalker/posters — who are very angry. I do not respond or engage them.
As I am all grown up, and chafe-free, thank you, I shall soldier on.
I don't understand what I'm reading: Herman Cain being considered for a seat on the Reserve Bank? Is there an opening??
while all eyes are focused on border/wall security, $100K buys wealthy pregnant Chinese women accommodation, free health care, baby citizenship and passport! Oh, and shopping sprees at Gucci, etc while they wait.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html
Surely a challenge for America’s naysayers, right?
mtierney said:
while all eyes are focused on border/wall security, $100K buys wealthy pregnant Chinese women accommodation, free health care, baby citizenship and passport! Oh, and shopping sprees at Gucci, etc while they wait.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html
Surely a challenge for America’s naysayers, right?
Good thing we’re going to build a wall, that will once and for all put a stop to this.
mtierney said:
while all eyes are focused on border/wall security, $100K buys wealthy pregnant Chinese women accommodation, free health care, baby citizenship and passport! Oh, and shopping sprees at Gucci, etc while they wait.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html
Surely a challenge for America’s naysayers, right?
I'm not sure if you read the entire article, but there's really nothing there that we should be alarmed about. These families are having babies in order that they might be able to come back decades from now if they want to go to school here, or if there's political unrest that makes their home countries dangerous. These are educated, wealthy people who are not planning to come to the US to take advantage of "welfare." If they do come back to live here in the future, they will in all likelihood be productive, contributing members of our country. And if I may add, the kind of people who will be paying for the Social Security and Medicare of people like me.
ml1 said:
mtierney said:I'm not sure if you read the entire article, but there's really nothing there that we should be alarmed about. These families are having babies in order that they might be able to come back decades from now if they want to go to school here, or if there's political unrest that makes their home countries dangerous. These are educated, wealthy people who are not planning to come to the US to take advantage of "welfare." If they do come back to live here in the future, they will in all likelihood be productive, contributing members of our country. And if I may add, the kind of people who will be paying for the Social Security and Medicare of people like me.
while all eyes are focused on border/wall security, $100K buys wealthy pregnant Chinese women accommodation, free health care, baby citizenship and passport! Oh, and shopping sprees at Gucci, etc while they wait.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html
Surely a challenge for America’s naysayers, right?
Not unlike a lot of illegal immigrants, come to think of it.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Was it the no-action title that caught your attention?
Freshman in College, Freshman in the Capitol: West Virginia’s 19-Year-Old Lawmaker