Another News Article Grievance

[owl]

In this news article on Yahoo.com about O'Reilly and Colbert's appointments on each others' shows, the author writes:

 

On "The Colbert Report," Colbert portrays a self-involved talk-show host who has tried to bring "truthiness" to the world. His character owes an obvious debt to O'Reilly, who holds court in the "no-spin zone" each evening.

 

On "The O'Reilly Factor," O'Reilly portrays a ... um, he hosts the top-rated program in cable news.

 

I can't even begin to say how much I dislike Bill O'Reilly, but still- since when do news articles contain ellipses, words like "um," and veiled sarcasm? What kind of reporting is that? It's not in the opinion section, it's not a blog, and it doesn't have a byline.

 

Is it supposed to be not only a jab at O'Reilly, but also an ironic twist because it's obviously great evidence for O'Reilly to point out "liberal bias" in the media?

 

Dear god!

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Maybe it's already established fact that Bill O'Reilly is "a self-involved talk-show host."

[owl]

Oh, trust me, I get the joke.

 

I'm just wondering when sentences/paragraphs like that became okay. I've seen similar things a few times now. I wonder if they come from the same AP writer?

[MrRain422]

I agree with the sentiment of the joke, but yeah, stuff like that doesn't have a place in anonymous AP stories. If it's got a by-line, fine.

[owl]

IMO, especially if it's not branded an "Opinion" article, even if it is in the "Entertainment" section.

[Atticus]

watch the English language spin 'round and 'round

'round and 'round

'round and 'round

 

watch the English language spin

'round and 'round

down the toilet bowl

[owl]

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

 

[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish' date=' but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.[/quote']

 

(i) Never use a metaphor' date=' simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

 

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

 

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

 

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

 

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

 

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.[/quote']

[WilcoFan]

As much as I love Orwell, in the link you provided it seems to me that Orwell was writing about his unwillingness to change. In 1946 the English language was certainly not in decline. It was then much like it is today - changing. The only difference now is that there are a whole bunch of other old people around today who say that English is declining.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

My wife and I were just talking about this last night. I HATE that stupid word utilize, which is just a three-syllable word for use ... a perfectly plain and, well, useful word.

[owl]

As much as I love Orwell, in the link you provided it seems to me that Orwell was writing about his unwillingness to change. In 1946 the English language was certainly not in decline. It was then much like it is today - changing. The only difference now is that there are a whole bunch of other old people around today who say that English is declining.

 

rspk4le I disagr3 w/ u

dont b a h8r

 

jkjkjkjkjk