Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-12 Thread PGage 
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Brad Beam  wrote:

> *From:* tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] *On
> Behalf Of *d...@flids.net
>
> *>>*"For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting
> writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long
> time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that
> it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did
> not?"
>
> >
>
> >..."point out that [its] editors read"...
>
> >
>
> >*mischievous grin*
>

I am smiling as I read this, but also, yes - this is a great illustration
of my point. What if my post above was for some reason quoted in an AP
story? I am writing here informally and quickly, wouldn't I feel like the
editor was a dick if they put [sic] after my mistaken it's? (Answer: yes, I
would).

Now my relationship to the Twitter is still rocky, and as Joe pointed out,
it may be that a post on Twitter is assumed to be more formal than a post
on a listserv, in which case perhaps my original perception was a bit
skewed.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread BillPartsch 
I’ve been out of the game for a few years, so I suppose it’s possible some 
publications’ style guides have been adapted to permit correcting grammatical 
errors in social media posts without brackets. I recognize editors do 
themselves no favors when they are perceived to be grossly insensitive or 
elitist. 

If I were editing a piece such as has been discussed here, I’d either put the 
correct language in brackets or paraphrase around the error. “A relative of one 
of the victims tweeted that the death would affect the family ‘for a long 
time.’”

In the Zucker case, I’d come up with something like, “The actor tweeted, ‘I am 
a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to a 
great man,’ adding that she has learned not to let the words of others affect 
her self-worth. She also urged readers to treat one another ‘with kindness, 
dignity and respect,’ in all settings, including locker rooms.”

In fact, the bigger problem with quoting social media is over-reliance on 
robotic re-transmission of entire tweets or big chunks of Facebook posts. A lot 
of (especially online) media outlets would do well to take a page from 
“Glengarry Glen Ross” and ABE: Always Be Editing.

—Bill

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 11:58 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use when 
> A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional sources 
> on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal distress 
> or crisis.
> 
> For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes 
> in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does 
> the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read 
> Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?
> 
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch <billpart...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:billpart...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually 
> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to 
> put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the 
> value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. 
> Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites 
> second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general professional 
> competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential 
> perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust.
> 
> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway 
> if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The 
> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors 
> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I 
> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to 
> “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker 
> momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such 
> practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically accompanied 
> by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. 
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca 
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','east...@mcd.on.ca');>> wrote:
>> 
>> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity that 
>> the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>> 
>> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? 
>> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net 
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','b.b...@suddenlink.net');>> wrote:
>> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was 
>> [sic]’d.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: adam.bo...@gmail.com 
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adam.bo...@gmail.com');> 
>> [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com 
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adam.bo...@gmail.com');>] On Behalf Of Adam 
>> Bowie
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
>> To: tvornottv
>> Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in 
>> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're 
>> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic 
>>

RE: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread Brad Beam 
From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of d...@flids.net


>>"For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes 
>>in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does 
>>the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read 
>>Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?"
> 
>..."point out that [its] editors read"...
> 
>*mischievous grin*
 
Today’s win of the internets goes to….
 
_  _
|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread doug 
"For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?"..."point out that [its] editors read"...*mischievous grin*Doug FieldsTampa, FL


 Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, October 11, 2016 11:58 am
To: "tvornottv@googlegroups.com" <tvornottv@googlegroups.com>

I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal distress or crisis.For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch <billpart...@gmail.com> wrote:When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust.A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca> wrote:personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it.On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net> wrote:CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was [sic]’d. From: adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam BowieSent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10To: tvornottvSubject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick? A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.  From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that quote Zucker. The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted. Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's factually incorrect.  On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging, and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):  “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.” I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, w

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread PGage 
Joe, both of these points are satisfying to me, thank-you. I think there
may be some question as to whether Zucker's post meets your extemporaneous
criteria, and I might want to give her the benefit of the doubt since  she
was so obviously dragged into this thing against her will; but then she is
a public person and can be assumed to have some kind of publicity
professionals working for her.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Joe Hass <hassgoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would make this argument for the use of "sic":
>
> This was not a extemporaneous tweet in which the author was typing this
> out bit after bit. This was intended as a released statement, which means
> someone else should've likely taken a look at this and gone "You meant
> 'affect' instead of 'effect' here." to release it. Because of that, I think
> the use of "sic" is worth using, identifying that the error was made in the
> original statement.
>
> With that said: I would reserve "sic" for situations where *any* reader
> would go "That is obviously wrong". A sic is designed to be used when the
> reader would've already stopped and the editor needs to identify that,
> basically, it's not us. Putting it in is the equivalent of a speed bump: it
> stops the reader's flow, which makes sense if the belief is the reader has
> already stopped. When the error isn't so obvious (which affect/effect
> definitely falls under), using "sic" forces the reader to try to figure out
> what the problem was. I'd go with the bracketed "[affect]" in this
> situation.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use
>> when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional
>> sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal
>> distress or crisis.
>>
>> For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting
>> writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long
>> time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that
>> it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch <billpart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually
>> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be
>> to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect]
>> the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s
>> integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which
>> invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general
>> professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off
>> of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining
>> reader/viewer trust.
>>
>> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some
>> leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The
>> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors
>> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I
>> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed
>> to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the
>> speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations.
>> Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically
>> accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for
>> length and clarity.
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca> wrote:
>>
>> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
>> that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>>
>> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
>> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
>> was [sic]’d.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Adam Bowie
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
>> *To:* tvornottv
>> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>>
>>
>>
>> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
>>

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread Joe Hass 
I would make this argument for the use of "sic":

This was not a extemporaneous tweet in which the author was typing this out
bit after bit. This was intended as a released statement, which means
someone else should've likely taken a look at this and gone "You meant
'affect' instead of 'effect' here." to release it. Because of that, I think
the use of "sic" is worth using, identifying that the error was made in the
original statement.

With that said: I would reserve "sic" for situations where *any* reader
would go "That is obviously wrong". A sic is designed to be used when the
reader would've already stopped and the editor needs to identify that,
basically, it's not us. Putting it in is the equivalent of a speed bump: it
stops the reader's flow, which makes sense if the belief is the reader has
already stopped. When the error isn't so obvious (which affect/effect
definitely falls under), using "sic" forces the reader to try to figure out
what the problem was. I'd go with the bracketed "[affect]" in this
situation.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use
> when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional
> sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal
> distress or crisis.
>
> For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting
> writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long
> time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that
> it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?
>
>
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch <billpart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually
> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be
> to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect]
> the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s
> integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which
> invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general
> professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off
> of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining
> reader/viewer trust.
>
> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some
> leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The
> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors
> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I
> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed
> to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the
> speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations.
> Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically
> accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for
> length and clarity.
>
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca> wrote:
>
> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
> that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>
> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
> it.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
> was [sic]’d.
>
>
>
> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
> Bowie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
> *To:* tvornottv
> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>
>
>
> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>
>
>
> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their
> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports
> that quote Zucker.
>
>
>
> The same piece (
> https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/)
> also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially
> when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question
> probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that small grammatical

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread PGage 
I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use
when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional
sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal
distress or crisis.

For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes
in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time".
Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's
editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch <billpart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually
> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be
> to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect]
> the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s
> integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which
> invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general
> professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off
> of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining
> reader/viewer trust.
>
> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some
> leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The
> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors
> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I
> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed
> to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the
> speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations.
> Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically
> accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for
> length and clarity.
>
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','east...@mcd.on.ca');>> wrote:
>
> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
> that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>
> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
> it.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','b.b...@suddenlink.net');>> wrote:
>
>> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
>> was [sic]’d.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adam.bo...@gmail.com');> [mailto:
>> adam.bo...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','adam.bo...@gmail.com');>] *On Behalf Of *Adam
>> Bowie
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
>> *To:* tvornottv
>> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>>
>>
>>
>> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
>> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
>> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>>
>>
>>
>> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
>> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's
>> their report that has been used as the substance of many of the other
>> reports that quote Zucker.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.c
>> om/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about
>> how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially when the mistake is
>> common and one that the publication in question probably makes quite a lot.
>> "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
>> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
>> it's factually incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pga...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
>> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
>> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
>> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
>> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):
>>
>>
>>
>> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread BillPartsch 
When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually “[sic]”—is 
required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to put the 
correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the value….” 
It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. Letting it 
slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites second-guessing of 
reporting, fact-checking, and general professional competence. For any media 
outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential perceived dickishness is 
absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust.

A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway if 
the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The reporter/writer can 
edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors when it is beyond 
question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I remember when Bobby 
Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to “…June of ’68,” 
without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker momentarily 
confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such practice is routine 
for Q’s online or in print and is typically accompanied by a disclaimer that 
the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. 

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick <east...@mcd.on.ca> wrote:
> 
> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity that 
> the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
> 
> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? 
> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net 
> <mailto:b.b...@suddenlink.net>> wrote:
> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was 
> [sic]’d.
> 
>  
> 
> From: adam.bo...@gmail.com <mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com> 
> [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com <mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Adam 
> Bowie
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
> To: tvornottv
> Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
> 
>  
> 
> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in their 
> reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're using an 
> agency report as the backbone of their stories. 
> 
>  
> 
> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic 
> into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their 
> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that 
> quote Zucker.
> 
>  
> 
> The same piece 
> (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/
>  
> <https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/>)
>  also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially 
> when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably 
> makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
> 
>  
> 
> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed 
> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's 
> factually incorrect. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com 
> <mailto:pga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or journalism 
> or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this presentation of a 
> tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the Trump Tape (she was 
> one of the women who was the subject of his bragging, and the target of Billy 
> Bush's pimping): 
> 
>  
> 
> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner 
> to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others 
> cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my 
> character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker 
> rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.”
> 
>  
> 
> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who 
> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect" and 
> not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is from a 
> book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case like this, 
> when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's public and 
> easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning of the 
> passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that everything inside 
> is as the author wr

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread Doug Eastick 
personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.

I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
it.



On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam <b.b...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
> was [sic]’d.
>
>
>
> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
> Bowie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
> *To:* tvornottv
> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>
>
>
> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>
>
>
> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their
> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports
> that quote Zucker.
>
>
>
> The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-
> censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about how sic can be used in quite
> a superior way, especially when the mistake is common and one that the
> publication in question probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
> it's factually incorrect.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):
>
>
>
> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
> partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
> of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
> content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
> doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
> and respect.”
>
>
>
> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who
> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect"
> and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is
> from a book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case
> like this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's
> public and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning
> of the passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that
> everything inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who
> to blame, can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for
> themselves? It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and
> mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that
> college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere
> make all the time.
>
>
>
> This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no
> particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more
> trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she
> is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then
> gets thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am
> overlooking something?
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> G

RE: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread Brad Beam 
CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was 
[sic]’d.
 
From: adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Bowie
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
To: tvornottv
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
 
A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in their 
reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're using an 
agency report as the backbone of their stories. 
 
>From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic into 
>their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their report 
>that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that quote 
>Zucker.
 
The same piece 
(https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/)
 also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially when 
the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably makes 
quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
 
Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed over, 
but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's 
factually incorrect. 
 
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com 
<mailto:pga...@gmail.com> > wrote:
I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or journalism 
or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this presentation of a tweet 
by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the Trump Tape (she was one of 
the women who was the subject of his bragging, and the target of Billy Bush's 
pimping): 
 
“I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to 
a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others cannot 
effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my character. 
How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker rooms or 
face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.”
 
I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who then 
transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect" and not 
"affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is from a book or 
hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case like this, when the 
quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's public and easily 
available writing, and does not really change the meaning of the passage, don't 
the quotation marks themselves indicate that everything inside is as the author 
wrote them? If the reader is unsure who to blame, can't they pretty easily go 
to her twitter account and check for themselves? It seems like adding sic here 
is kind of a dick move, and mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making 
the kind of mistake that college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond 
that) everywhere make all the time.
 
This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no particular 
reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more trite and banal 
than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she is just living her 
life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then gets thrown under the bus 
by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am overlooking something?
-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com> 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com> 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread Adam Bowie 
A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.

>From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced
*sic *into
their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their report
that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that quote
Zucker.

The same piece (
https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/)
also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially
when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question
probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.

Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
it's factually incorrect.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  wrote:

> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):
>
> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
> partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
> of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
> content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
> doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
> and respect.”
>
> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who
> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect"
> and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is
> from a book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case
> like this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's
> public and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning
> of the passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that
> everything inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who
> to blame, can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for
> themselves? It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and
> mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that
> college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere
> make all the time.
>
> This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no
> particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more
> trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she
> is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then
> gets thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am
> overlooking something?
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

2016-10-11 Thread PGage 
I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):

“I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
and respect.”

I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who
then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect"
and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is
from a book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case
like this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's
public and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning
of the passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that
everything inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who
to blame, can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for
themselves? It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and
mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that
college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere
make all the time.

This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no
particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more
trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she
is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then
gets thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am
overlooking something?

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.