Thursday, June 29, 2017
Wsa this insensional?
ZH features the idiot NYT "editors" striking for something or other.
The ZH writer proves that editors are useful:
The walkout reportedly began at 3 p.m., Eastern Time and lasted fifteen minutes. After what looks like a sizable portion - if not the entire staff- of the New York Times New York headquarters spilled out onto 42nd street and Eigth Ave. (the location of the Times' Time Square headquarters), photos and video of the walkout are begining to emerge on twitter ... Can the paper afford to keep all these editors while still meeting the onermous demands for profits from shareholders?Unfortunately the Times, even WITH copy editors, isn't any better. The last time I read their print edition regularly was in the late '80s, when I was generally leftish but too busy to get excited about politics. The Times was available on newsstands at Penn State, so I picked it up regularly. Even though I approved of the leftist bias, I couldn't stand the constant typos and sloppy syntax. I switched to the Altoona paper, which was unbiased and carefully edited. The editors weren't earning their pay then. Now, with auto spellcheckers fixing most errors, they're even less necessary. ZH could use them! (Admittedly, onermous is a nice accidental portmanteau.) Just for fun, editing the above by my 'stylebook'...
The walkout reportedly began at 3 PM and lasted fifteen minutes. After what looked like a sizeable portion (if not the entire staff) of the Times's New York headquarters spilled out onto 42nd St and Eighth Ave [Times Square], photos and video of the walkout are beginning to emerge on Twitter ... Can the paper afford to keep all these editors while still meeting the onerous demands for increased share value from Carlos Slim?¶ 11:05 PM
