Murder in the SunMorgue
Who killed hundreds of Syrian children in Ghouta, Aug21|2013? How, and why?
March 4, 2016
LogoPhere's inaugural inventory of media
fails for 2016
The ole' OJ story is back with a vengeance these days, and Andrew Buncombe, of The Independent, Mar04|2016 has done his level best to capitalize on it. See if you can make sense of his sub-headline:
Andrew's story itself is not much better. Here is the original story in its entirety. (It's now been doctored.) At the end you may wonder, as I did: What officer?
I left the following comment -- the first in the thread -- with the Indy and they cleaned the mess up a bit. So that's my contribution of the week for the good of mankind.
While we've got the light on Andrew Buncombe and the Independent, here's one from Jan21|2016.
It's, like, we gave you one simple task, Andrew: Read the freakin' FOX report and plagiarize it in your own words. And you screwed it. Please take note: When writing cretinous single-sentence paragraphs, your 5th grade education really sticks out. At least you spelled "enclosure" correctly.
One can only wonder what trifling sum the Independent pays its editors and what country they work from.
Speaking of British editors who have their heads up their butts, here's a front page headline from the Daily Mail, Mar02|2016 that begs the eternal question: "Who the fuck is he?"
Nobody but the British can write headlines like this one by Mia De Graff and Kalhan Rosenblatt in the Daily Mail Feb28|2016. The Pentagon, it turns out, is 32, the sergeant shot a dead police officer, and the dead police officer was on his wife, whatever the hell that means. Sounds kinky to me . . . .
The Daily Mail has an absolutely charming habit of publishing pixilated photographs of people as if a pixilated photograph somehow adds to the validity of the article. It doesn't. It's just a stupid waste of pixels on my screen, you dolts. Here are a couple of examples:
Jay Akbar's piece on Feb21|2016 about the famous Rolling Stone fuster-cluck false-rape story provides a very helpful "photo" of "Jackie," the lying coed who could have gotten a number of innocent frat guys busted for a long stretch
Read to the bottom of Akbar's piece and you come to the following odd ending, which suggests to me that ole' Jay was cutting and copying with wild abandon from the WaPo and neglected to omit from his clip, clip, clip the WaPo disclaimer:
Here's another recent pixilation example. On Mar02|2016 the Daily Mail front page gives us this very helpful photo of a 4 yo rape victim. Neglecting the question of WTF is the point of publishing the kid's pixilated photo, my question is, pixilated or not, why does the Daily Mail even have possession of any photos of the kid. Very creepy.
I have repeatedly flamed HuffPo as being little more than a hard-porn site posing as a respectable news aggregator. Here. Here. And so there was no deep surprise at seeing this Jan06|2016 HuffPo headline about eating men's sperm. After all this is precisely the gross sort of sex advice to women the HuffPo fem editors/writers specialize in.
But the choice of words begs the question of why specify "men's" sperm. Obviously, these HuffPo fems are not trying to distinguish men from women since women so rarely produce sperm, at least not yet. Are they distinguishing men from, say, donkeys??
Daily Mail, front page, Jan29|2016 -- three sentences, three goofs. Yeah, we're running about average here.
On Jan29|2016, Alexandra Genova of the Daily Mail took this lede written by AP . . .
and turned it into this monstrosity:
No, no, no, Alex. That's not the way it works. In America a cop is only permitted to shoot each unarmed person dead one time. That's just the rules.
Speaking of rules, note that neither AP nor Alex have any clue that there are rules about how to handle pronouns. That "his" refers back to the closest male noun or noun phrase, which is "black teenager," who likely didn't have a dashcam. Probably didn't even have a dash or a car to put it in.
Finally, here's an interesting one for you math & stats lovers . . . on Jan17|2016 Jon Stone of the Independent wrote the following:
OK, just for fun, pull out your calculator and follow me on this. If $1T represents a fall of 41%, then the accumulative wealth of the poor in 2010 must have been $2.445T and is $1.445T today. According to Jon, that sum is divided among 3.6 million poor people, which comes out to over $400,000 each.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the poorest people on Earth had assets of $400,000 each? Who cares how much the richest have, if the poorest of us had enough to lead lives in which everyone's potential and dreams could be realistically pursued, then all of us would be in awfully good shape. Just think about it.
Unfortunately, Jon didn't. In a world with over 7 billion people, the bottom half is a lot more than 3.6 million. When you correct Jon's pesky 3-decimal place error and re-calculate, you find that the bottom half of humanity owns, on average . . . $400.
And we rich Westerners wonder and despair at why there is so much violence and suffering in the world. Can't imagine.
Denis R. O'Brien, PhD/Esq.
Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.