…but the damage is done. I cannot conceive how anybody can continue to take the newspaper seriously after an error like this:
Jeebus, what do they teach people in J-School these days?
[…] Moe Lane responds, “Jeebus, what do they teach people in J-School these days?” […]
You know, when a newspaper makes an obvious mistake like this, it makes you wonder about their credibility in more obscure matters.
Huh? This is noteworthy?
Hope that clears it up for you.
Uncultured baboons. The only mitigating factor is that this was the sports pages. But, then, don’t they claim to have “layers and layers” of fact checkers?
In a close (Q6) parallel, Tolkien gave Orcrist to Bilbo, Aeglos to Gandalf, and Glamdring to Thorin. Sting was not present. The only other known deviations are that Summer Glau played the Mila Kunis role in Black Swan, Firefly was cancelled after a successful 6 year run, and George RR Martin’s Winds of Winter has already been released. The parallel has been dubbed “Nerdgasm-1”.
The NYTimes remains a basket case, though.
Sting was a long knife and not a sword. It’s bad when your corrections contain errors. It’s like it’s not even important.
marybeth: I gave them a pass on that because by Hobbit standards Sting was a short sword, and I’m not myself entirely certain of the difference between ‘dagger,’ ‘short sword,’ and ‘knife’ in this context.
asdf5: You forgot the animated Dr. Horrible series. Only two seasons, but endlessly syndicated anyway.
@Moe_Lane It depends on whether you’re using D&D 3.0 or 3.5 rules. In the latter, “a weapon’s size category is keyed to the size of the intended wielder” — in other words, a Hobbit-sized dagger is smaller than a human-sized dagger.
@asdf5 Rev up the conveyor!
Don’t forget “Brimstone” which had a five season run and the fifth was three two hour movies that ended in Ezekiel Stone’s redemption. It was controversial given how dark it was but the critics ended up agreeing that it was a good end to the series.
And you would think that the NYT would have some geeks on staff somewhere that they could have done some research…
I’d be dismayed, except that I think this is the kind of news the NYT should stick to. They sure don’t know how to do the other kind.
What is this NYT of which you speak? I have heard of news printed on the thinned bark of dead trees, but surely that was in a distant place long ago where small, hairy-footed creatures carried short swords.
“What is this NYT of which you speak?
It’s an organization called a newspaper. Evidently they print out web pages onto cheap paper, roll them up, and throw them in your driveway daily. Then after you’re finished reading them, you have to take them back to the driveway and put them in the recycle bin. Hardcopy websites…what a silly idea.
Yeah, but you can take the paper, mix it with paste and water, and then shape the resulting goop into giant puppets that have symbolic significance in various progressive religious rituals. So at least they’re getting some use out of the stuff.
@Cameron: In that same universe, “No Ordinary Family” was picked up for another season. *sigh*
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Site by Neil Stevens
| Theme by TheBuckmaker.com