How the media changed

UPI ^ | April 8, 2003 | Martin Walker

[facedown]

We began to understand their quiet pride in their skills, and the plain decency of the men and women who follow the profession of arms.

BTTT

[Pete'sWife]

One of these days, some of those embedded reporters will be in management positions.

Let's hope they remember all this.

[theDentist]

There was no question which side I was on.

Tsk tsk tsk. What ever happened to "objectivity"? Who is this man to turn his back on journalism just because he knows the names of those with whom he travels? The NY Times would not be happy with him.

[MindBender26]

"alright" is a very common "British" word, much like "Ok" here.

Remember, on a bugger day, a Brit might put on his waistcoat, alight in his motorcar after he checked under the bonnet, drive down the motorway, or even the dual carriageway to shop at the ironmonger.... instead of putting on a vest on a cold day hopping in the car after checking under the hood, then driving down the road or even espressway to the hardware store.

[Nebullis]

NPR has been complaining loudly about the loss of "objectivity" by embedded reporters.

[Atlas Sneezed]

In proper English, alright is a common and correct contraction.

A nonstandard or informal usage is inappropriate for a formal news article. Moreover, the usage is incorrect, even if its informality were acceptable. Even definition number 3 below arguably does not quite apply.

adj : nonstandard usage adv

1: reinforces an assertion, as in "It's expensive all right" [syn: all right, without doubt]

2: sentence-initial expression of agreement [syn: very well, fine, all right, OK]

3: (informal) in a satisfactory or adequate manner; "she'll do okay on her own"; "held up all right under pressure"; (`alright' is a nonstandard variant of `all right') [syn: okay, O.K., all right]

If you're going to be a spelling cop, at least have a clue.

If you're going to engage in a discussion of language issues, at least show some manners.

[Gamecock]

realizing that we in the media had better rethink the way we do our work

This is why I was in favor of embedding the media from the start. I knew once they saw us in action, they would come around.

[Indy Pendance]

Here's the link, but it looks like UPI is having site trouble right now.

How the media changed

[Gamecock]

"one that has learned to distrust most of the media"

This is true. The Army Command and General Staff College has classes on how to deal with the media. We are taught to stop distrusting the media and give them access to the troops. Once they have that access they will realize what great folks we have in the military and the press, as a whole, will become our fans.

[Wright is right!]

"It turns out to have been an excellent idea to have embedded reporters - to put a human face on the folks they typically loathe."

Let's remember that EMBEDDING REPORTERS is NOT a new idea. We did it in World War II. If you wanted to cover the war, you enlisted, went thru Basic, and became a member of your unit. This isn't all that much different.

That doesn't mean that it isn't a GREAT idea. In fact, many months ago there were several of us, including myself, who suggested exactly what Dubya and the Pentagon ended up doing.

Michael

[TroutStalker]

Sure as hell wasn't written by Helen Thomas.

[GWfan]

Bumpity bump. Nice thing to read with my coffee.

[ladtx]

We saw how hard they tried to avoid civilian casualties, and the risks they took by their self-restraint. We began to understand their quiet pride in their skills, and the plain decency of the men and women who follow the profession of arms.

I believe it's called an "epiphany".

[Maigrey]

"Well, it's about bloody time" BUMP

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

NPR has been complaining loudly about the loss of "objectivity" by embedded reporters.

The thing to understand that objective journalist^TM is merely a label, a brand name like Kleenex--applied to journalists in general but not descriptive of the nature of the person or his role.

The First Amendment guarantees that the government has no role in determining who you choose to listen to or believe. That leaves you free to declare yourself a journalist, even an objective one, without government interference.

The interference you will encounter will come from the Establishment which calls itself by that objective journalist^TM name, and which will exploit its PR power to heap scorn and ridicule on you as necessary to cause you to withdraw from competing with them on their turf.

[Question_Assumptions]

A nonstandard or informal usage is inappropriate for a formal news article. Moreover, the usage is incorrect, even if its informality were acceptable. Even definition number 3 below arguably does not quite apply.

The common usage of a language is not fixed in amber for the ages, no matter how much the French like to pretend it is. Language evolves and changes over time. As for "official definitions", please bear in mind that dictionary definitions are often quite subjective and definitions can differ substantially from dictionary to dictionary. In Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary, for example, I find (note the underlined section):

One entry found for alright. Main Entry: alright
Pronunciation: (")ol-'rIt, 'ol-"
Function: adverb or adjective
Date: 1887
: ALL RIGHT
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright -- Gertrude Stein>.

Note the absence of a definitive judgment that this is "nonstandard usage" and a recognition that this usage is common in journalistic and business publications.

If you're going to engage in a discussion of language issues, at least show some manners.

Language discussions generally get reduced down to arguments of formal grammars and dictionaries vs. the common usage. While I do see a value in standardized English, I think that the grammar and dictionary advocates can often lose sight of the fact that the grammars and dictionaries exist to describe the common usage, the common usage does not exist to comply with grammars and dictionaries. And this becomes a real problem when scholars introduce rules into English that are not native to the common usage (e.g., the "split infinitive", mathematical negation, etc.).

[reflecting]

Thanks for the article. Amazing how a bit of real life exposure illuminates the understanding.

[Elsie]

While you guys are straining at the gnats, this CAMEL slipped past the spellchecker!

---

In other words, these are the first conservatives these liberal reporters have ever met. Most liberals are immersed in liberal clicks, and write their bile from bias, not experience.

---

Can we say clique?

I thought so............

[In The Defense of Liberty]

Yeah, isn't it GREAT!??!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[mvpel]

And besides, he was quoting the SAS guy verbatim who wasn't using a formal tone.