Posted on 01/11/2010 3:45:27 AM PST by militanttoby
So while one could say it is right up his alley, I think "right up his runway" is probably more accurate ;-)
Ah yes, lol, Anderson Vanderbilt Poofter Cooper is right at home on the runway! So, “right up his runway” it is.
LOL.
It drives me nuts when I make typos because I work so hard to save time and trouble for the folks receiving the write-ups -- I like to think they keep using me in part because my copy is clean and easy to work with. But even so ... the other day, I turned in a story and in the lead (or "lede," if you're into arcane journo-speak like Hugh Hewitt!) used "to" instead of "too" ... I was so embarassed! *sigh*
I do think writers should live by the motto: "When in doubt, look it up." But it's probably that Zeigler didn't really have the time. Doesn't excuse it ... just explains it.
Yes I have, and I wasn't criticizing Ziegler because of his typos since I know that he was in a big hurry to get the first counter punch in immediately after the 60 Minutes hit piece. He was undoubtedly up late and published his piece to the web as is to get the first lick in.
All I was doing was pointing out a couple of major typos to him so that he could go back and fix them, and to NOT give the libs any reason to deride or attack him. That's all.
GOD! they are afraid of her!
Kudos to ya. Sorry I misinterpreted the tone of your posts.
And what is the leading cause of typos in writing?
"But these days, being FIRST is more important than being RIGHT. "
---So, why are you lumping me in with others, when it is obvious that HASTE may have been the cause for the author?
Do you have some other explanation for why such an accomplished author, with money to pay a staff of proofreaders, would make these kind of mistakes?
You think you know the answer to that? Get real! Typos are a mystery every time. They just slip by more often when other priorities preclude thorough proofreading.
"... with money to pay a staff of proofreaders ..."
LOL! [^) Yer killin' me! [^)
I see you haven't made your living as a self-publishing freelance journalist such as Ziegler, then.
In these days, being FIRST is more important than being late by anywhere from 8 hours to 48 hours for lack of a proofreader; if, as is likely true in THIS case, you're one of the only ones who will "be" with the topic at all, let alone FIRST, timeliness takes priority over typos. You gotta know when to put the crayons away.
It's a good word, "priorities."
It's good that the typos were pointed out, and they WERE lulus! It will be helpful and of good use to Ziegler (they will have been pointed out to him by many!). My guess is that he's sitting shaking his head in chagrin and embarassment, wondering, "How in hell did that happen? 'Rouge' instead of 'Rougue'? Aaaargh!" (slaps himself upside the head).
However, while Ziegler's typos impugn his ability as a proofreader, they don't impugn his credibility as a well-informed conservative journalist/commentator.
Yes.
Typos are a mystery every time.
Maybe they are to you. I know exactly why they occur. (well, except for this one FR poster I know who is purposely dyslexic)
They just slip by more often when other priorities preclude thorough proofreading.
WHEN BEING FIRST IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN BEING RIGHT.
I see you haven't made your living as a self-publishing freelance journalist such as Ziegler, then.
No, but I can see you might consider yourself as such, as defensive as you are getting about my original and completely valid point.
In these days, being FIRST is more important than being late by anywhere from 8 hours to 48 hours for lack of a proofreader; if, as is likely true in THIS case, you're one of the only ones who will "be" with the topic at all, let alone FIRST, timeliness takes priority over typos.
If this is an example of your prolific skills as a self-publishing freelance journalist, then you should follow this piece of advice from a good friend: "You gotta know when to put the crayons away."
It's a good word, "priorities."
It certainly is. When an author puts being FIRST over spending time ensuring their are no errors, that is certainly a solid example of "priorities".
We haven't even discussed the second reason for typos.
Dependence on computerized 'spelling checkers'. (i.e. Not spending the time to check it yourself, which relates back to being FIRST)
I never said it did.
If you read my first few posts, I was remarking about everyone but Ziegler.
My comment about BEING FIRST was a general comment about all WRITERS and JOURNALISTS. I have noticed many more typos in newer books, and MSM articles than there used to be back before everyone had to have everything INSTANTEOUSLY, or lose their market.
I just ‘got it’. I said being FIRST was more important than being RIGHT.
The last word is what you object to. You thought I meant the author’s storyline was somehow corrupt.
In my statement, RIGHT stood for: Grammatically, and phonetically correct, with proper spelling.
That's where you're confused. Well, it's one of the areas where you're confused.
For the record, unlike Ziegler, I have never made my living as a self-published freelancer. Others have published my works, and they are very humble indeed; I am in no way comparable to Zeigler!
If you know "exactly" why typos occur, then you are a remarkable person indeed. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
You also obviously have very little experience in the field. Take my using the word "flower" in place of "flour." I was not rushed; I had plenty of time to proof the piece before turning it in, and did -- I honed it and tightened it and cleaned it up just the way my editor liked -- less work for him; it was one of the reasons he liked me.
So you tell me, oh wise one: WHY did that "flower/flour" typo occur consistently and repeatedly throughout the piece? Be advised that this was pre-spell-check days. My editor sure as hell didn't know, nor did I -- why don't you enlighten us?
If the drive to be first and the computer-check programs are the cause of typos, explain to me and about ten others in an office where I once worked how a typo STILL got past us all, as all of us very carefully and painstakingly took much time to proof about 1,500 words of copy for a large and detailed brochure before it went to print. Between us all, we caught and corrected probably two dozen typos. ONE still slipped past. Now Oh Wise One, EXPLAIN it to me "exactly" why it occured, as you seem to know?
Yep, you gotta know when to put the crayons away. I think you're one of those types who would never thrive in certain kinds of endeavors because you don't get the concept. But that's FINE, dear fellow FReeper, because on the other hand, you are one of those types who, in detail-oriented fields where catching goofs is truly crucial, will THRIVE and EXCEL and be of huge productivity and use to the rest of us who don't have that quality.
Whaddaya think o' them apples?
Yes, it's true, I have done that, and it's probably not to my credit, because the piece may very well be on point, but I'm so turned of by certain kinds of typos that the writer loses credibility with me, right or wrong. It's a kind of weakness in me.
That "certain kind" of typo to which I refer is one that indicates a contempt for the proper use of the English language, the mentality that it's not important whether or not you write "their" or "there." It's a kind of arrogance that I think I sense (whether or not the arrogance is actually there is a different story!) that turns me off. It's when the writer thumbs his nose at the "niceties" of right spelling and punctuation as if they were beneath them. That drives me NUTS, and I bet it drives you nuts, too! I'm familiar enough with Zeigler to know that he doesn't fall into that category.
"But he also said there were “numerous instances” when Palin said things that weren’t correct and “that opened the door to criticism that she was being untruthful and inaccurate. And I think that that is something that continues to this day."
This was taken from the Politico article on "Game Change" on 60 Minutes, but is representative. Never are examples of these "incorrect" statements given, although they are said to be numerous.
Ziegler says Schmidt has supplied only two examples. One was that Palin said the Troopergate report exonerated her. Well, in the end, it did. The other was Todd Palin's registration with the Alaska Independence Party. He thought he was registering as an independent not with the party that wants Alaska's independence.
Just to follow-up, John emailed me back with his thanks for pointing out the typos and has fixed them. Good job to all!
Ain't Karma a bitch???
Thank you for all your responses. I have read them carefully.
You state: “I’m familiar enough with Zeigler to know that he doesn’t fall into that category. “
It seems (to me) that if you are familiar with (and like) an author, then their typos are due to ‘unknown reasons’.
If you are not familiar with, or don’t like a particular author, then their typos are due to ‘arrogance’.
Is that not correct?
GOD does not help me because I am good. GOD helps me because GOD is good. Out of lots of great material on your homepage, that is one that REALLY sings.
As for your comments above: typos in Free Republic posts almost always get a pass from me because I know anyone can make them and that if everyone took the time to properly proof their posts, this forum would cease being timely; it would be a STUPID placement of priorities. This is not a professional writers' forum and the people who post comments are not doing so as professional writers. When I, or you, or anyone else makes a typo, I brush it off with some few exceptions. Anyone who gets bunched up over such typos in FReeper posts needs to get a healthier perspective.
As for your comment that If you are not familiar with, or don’t like a particular author, then their typos are due to ‘arrogance’," that's insulting and silly. The other day I saw a post (as differentiated from a comment) of a piece supposedly written by a professional writer. I had never heard of the person and in fact the person sounded like a closet liberal, or RINO. He wrote "stir the course" instead of "steer the course." That was a typo in my opinion as a long-time, experienced professional writer, and the writer clearly had a healthy and good respect for the English language. I didn't know the writer and was inclined not to approve of his opinion, but still was honest enough NOT to attribute his typo to arrogance, thank you very much.
Typos are inevitable; contempt for proper English usage is deplorable. They are two different things, and very subjective at that, you're right, and if you had actually paid attention to the two or three posts on this thread where I address that point, you'll have noted that I consider it a weakness in myself to be tempted to dismiss them as such.
You don't know what causes typos anymore than you know what causes stubbed toes. You were wrong -- you just lack the grace to admit it. :^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.