greyhounds YoHo1975I have a Friend that is an editor in a media corporation. I joking ribbed him about the editing in that article. He pointed out to me that really there's nothing of significance wrong with it. The errors I pointed out are trivial. The point of the article is about the health and plans of modern railroads and it delivers that message to it's audience with no spelling errors and proper editing. Sure, there are some misquotes and misstatements, but those misquotes and misstatements are only detracting to foamers. As far as the core audience of the paper. The fact that the tunnels were raised/floors lowered and the articles said they were widened doesn't make a darn bit of difference. She did track down the news and reported it. The news of the story is about the spending of the railroads and their expectations in this market. The specifics aren't the news. I and my friend aren't saying it wouldn't be better to be correct, just that this isn't a reasonable complaint. I agree that the article got the general point across. But what's "trivial" and "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. I won't accept a standard that allows some professional journalist to say "widened" when it was a height change they were writing about. To me, that's just basic accuracy and understanding. But, I'm not in charge and if that's the media industry standard so be it.
YoHo1975I have a Friend that is an editor in a media corporation. I joking ribbed him about the editing in that article. He pointed out to me that really there's nothing of significance wrong with it. The errors I pointed out are trivial. The point of the article is about the health and plans of modern railroads and it delivers that message to it's audience with no spelling errors and proper editing. Sure, there are some misquotes and misstatements, but those misquotes and misstatements are only detracting to foamers. As far as the core audience of the paper. The fact that the tunnels were raised/floors lowered and the articles said they were widened doesn't make a darn bit of difference. She did track down the news and reported it. The news of the story is about the spending of the railroads and their expectations in this market. The specifics aren't the news. I and my friend aren't saying it wouldn't be better to be correct, just that this isn't a reasonable complaint.
I agree that the article got the general point across. But what's "trivial" and "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. I won't accept a standard that allows some professional journalist to say "widened" when it was a height change they were writing about. To me, that's just basic accuracy and understanding.
But, I'm not in charge and if that's the media industry standard so be it.
Those of us who deal with tunnels know that they are not just a everyday hole, but in addition to their length through the obstacle also have dimensions of height and width.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI agree that the article got the general point across. But what's "trivial" and "reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder. I won't accept a standard that allows some professional journalist to say "widened" when it was a height change they were writing about. To me, that's just basic accuracy and understanding.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.