Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Previous Posts
- The man who would be suspect
- And you could look it up
- Such as a rolling stone
- Big scary world out there!
- Resolutions
- Stuff that surveys don't do
- Every one of 'em has a vote
- Words of One Syllable Dept.
- Making the desk look bad
- Nice work you might have missed
Mailbag!
- vulteef [at] gmail [dot] com
- Testy Copy Editors
- ACES
- Bad Science
- Regret the Error
- Romenesko
- Common Sense Journalism
- You Don't Say
- EditTeach
- Ask the stylebook
- Media Watch
- Blogslot
- Editor's Desk
- Words at Work
- Ten Minutes Past Deadline
- Madam Grammar
- Media Myths Alert
- Old Word Wolf
- WSJ: Style and substance
- Today's Front Pages
- Language Hat
- Language Log
- The Greenbelt
- Language Politics
- Oxford University Press
- Mr. Verb and the other Verbs
- Wishydig
- Throw Grammar from the Train
- Sentence First
- Online syntax textbook (Santorini & Kroch)
- Economist country briefings
- State Dept. country data
- Inflation calculator
- VassarStats
2 Comments:
Sorry, Fev, gotta disagree with you. This was big news here -- it was the stuff people were talking about over the water cooler and coffee pot (I know because I heard them).
We risk ignoring that reality at our elitist peril.
If you are objecting to the top-of-the-fold play as compared to to other campaign coverage, well, that might be good for discussion. But then again, Ric Flair's campaigning for another candidate got play, too. It's the way it is in these parts.
I can see an "everybody's talking about it" point, to an extent. But I wonder if it isn't just taking all the stuff we know is wrong with primary coverage and making it worse.
Of course, in these parts, we got no campaign, we got no candidates, and some of us got no delegates. So I'd settle for Ric Flair (tho I'd rather have Wahoo McDaniel)
Post a Comment
<< Home