Reading accounts of the (vexing and horrific) airliner crash Sunday in Greece, I was struck by the utter refusals of the media to call data a recorders and voice recorders what they plainly are. Instead, news outlets mostly insist calling them something they're not.
Flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders are kind of boxy but they're not black. They're orange, to stand out better among crash debris. But that's not important right now.
It doesn't take an expert to discern their function, especially when the discovery of them at a crash site is newsworthy. And yet, news outlets everywhere are determined to refer to them as "so-called black boxes." Or worse, to call them black boxes and then explain what black boxes do. (Hint: it has something to do with recording either flight data or cockpit voices).
I don't mean to get pissy about this, but it's one of those things that I suspect papers do because it's what they've done in the past. Possibly, "the reader" is invoked and slandered as a simple, beer-swilling rube who's heard of black boxes but couldn't possibly comprehend fancy words like "data" and "recorder." But that's just a grandfather clause for imprecise writing. Why bring a story to a screeching halt with unnecessary clauses?
In other news, (World Wide) Web logs, or so-called "blogs" are not made out of trees.
I know, I know. I'm probably the only one who cares about crap like this.
But then again, some friends and I had a conversation at a bar on Saturday night about "10 items or less" vs. "10 items or fewer" as well as the rule "everyone knows" about splitting infinitives.
What? Yes, actually. I am single. Why do you ask?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
preaching to the choir -- you're talking to a chick who goes apoplectic whenever she sees improper use of "over." and that is often.
I agree. I am curious about where you stand on the splitting infinitives rule. (I think it's an outdated rule that has a tendency to produce more stilted writing, much like the whole ending a sentence with a preposition rule.)
Ann, thank you. You're right I think that the rule about splitting infinitives is just like the rule about red wine with fish. Either "rule" can and should be ignored if the end result is pleasing.
Winston, tell me more. I miight not share your apoplexy on this one. (But I make up for it by becoming outraged to a mostly unjustifiable degree when people say "nauseous" when they mean "nauseated." I know they're basically interchangeable at this point, but still: Grr.
Thank you both.
As for the rest of you fuckers: As soon as I remember how to delete comments, you guys are out of here.
OK, that's much better, seeing as the number of people who come to Cole Slaw Blog seeking a photographer for their wedding in the vicinity of Northampton, UK, is most likely close to zero.
Wow. Why do you wait until I leave town to finally go (get it?) off the deep end?
in business for over 50 years. over 3 million satisfied customers! most are over 15 years old and over 4 feet tall, with incomes of over $25,000 per year.
you get the idea. drives me fucking NUTS.
Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which I will not put. Speaking of... I hate that commercial "where you at", so annoying.
Also, some people I work with forget the verb in sentences. For example, "that needs fixed" drives me nuts.
Post a Comment