Page 105 of 105 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105
Results 3,121 to 3,130 of 3130

Thread: Read that again?

  1. #3121
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,170

    Read that again?

    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    USA Today violated the guidelines in the Associated Press Stylebook which says:
    Well perhaps, but USA Today is not AP, so USA Today has to follow USA Today stylesheet, not AP stylesheet.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As above, so below

  2. #3122
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,515
    The AP Stylebook applies to all news organizations although Iíll grant you that itís largely a darned good convention that is adopted (or ignored) in most newsrooms. The rule of thumb was always ďWhen in doubt, check the Stylebook.Ē

    Some papers have their own conventions that predate the Stylebook, such as the New York Times referring to people as Mr. or Mrs. or Ms.

  3. #3123
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    30,599
    The AP Stylebook does not apply to all news organizations. As you mentioned, the New York Times. There are several papers in the US well known to have their own stylebooks, and that's one of them. Time has their own as well, and I'm pretty sure Newsweek does, too, that's different from Time. The AP would quite like all publications that use Associated Press information to use their style, but it's not mandatory.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  4. #3124
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,515
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    The AP Stylebook does not apply to all news organizations. As you mentioned, the New York Times. There are several papers in the US well known to have their own stylebooks, and that's one of them. Time has their own as well, and I'm pretty sure Newsweek does, too, that's different from Time. The AP would quite like all publications that use Associated Press information to use their style, but it's not mandatory.
    True, it's not mandatory and I'm not saying it is nor did I mean that. But the stylebook does establish consistency across news organizations and I'm quite sure that most, if not all, rely on the Stylebook for fundamentals or guidance. Like I said, when in doubt...

    A bit of trivia from the 2017 edition's Foreward (and my bold):

    The first Associated Press Stylebook was 60 pages, bound together with staples, a basic guide for newswriting. It has evolved into a comprehensive reference manual that fills more than 600 pages and is published in Spanish as well as English across an array of digital platforms, encompassing the collective wisdom of the AP staff and Stylebook readers.

    Despite drastic changes in the media landscape, one constant remains: The AP Stylebook is a definitive resource for writers. Today’s Stylebook still outlines basic rules on grammar, punctuation, usage and journalistic style, but it also reflects changes in common language, offers guidance on media law, explains AP’s news values and principles, and helps to navigate the ever-changing world of social media.
    When I worked in the news biz the AP Stylebook sat on every editor's desk and was present in every newsroom I ever visited when I changed career arcs to technology. Now you can get it as an e-book or an app...which would have been blissful back in the day when we first started writing on computers.

    As for the AP, it's a co-op made up by and for the news industry. News organizations agree to share content with the AP and have it distributed by the AP, so having consistency is important for easier sharing and reduced editing and re-work on the receiving end.

    ETA: And bit of computer weirdness in reviewing this thread and others. If I'm on a PC, using a real keyboard, then my posts are understandably more verbose than those produced on my phone. I suspect this is true with many people. But not always does Tapatalk append the "sent from my iPhone" note to my posts. Odd.
    Last edited by schlaugh; 2019-Feb-08 at 04:30 PM.

  5. #3125
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    13,943
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    T But not always does Tapatalk append the "sent from my iPhone" note to my posts. Odd.
    You can turn that off, or do a custom one, you know.

    Sent from my Dell Inspiron 15!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  6. #3126
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,515
    Yes, it just seemed weird that some posts included the tag line and others did not. Now I see that itís selectable on a post- by-post basis in Tapatalk so I may have fat-fingered the tick mark.

  7. #3127
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Florida.
    Posts
    5,724
    Hmmm. I thought the app was smart enough not to state "Excuse my brevity" when the statement went on too long!

  8. #3128
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,515
    If I get that wordy in Tapatalk I start to introduce a variety of errors.

  9. #3129
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    13,943
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    If I get that wordy in Tapatalk I start to introduce a variety of errors.
    As does autocorrect!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  10. #3130
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,613
    I am think about a book that has bothered me for years. It's called The Hunting of The Quark. It's science history and might not be the best source. What bothers me about it is, there is a paragraph which mentions the United States sent many of their top scientists to Vietnam to build a force shield. They failed.

    Ok... no real surprise there.

    What troubles me about this paragraph is, I can't determine the subtext of the comment. Is the author trying to say, "The military/government/war was silly/stupid"?

    What really troubles me is the obvious next question: "Ok, they didn't invent a force shield. What did they invent?" I am sort of incredulous that you could send all your top minds off to invent something and get a null result. They must have created something, right? And if it was the top minds at work, any result would interesting, even if it was not particularly helpful or even related to the task at hand.

    It's sort of like saying: "In August 1969, we rented a diary farm in New York and sent all of the best musicians there... and nothing at all happened."

    I am probable missing some sort of commentary on those events, or it is a minor detail which has been blown out of proportion, or it didn't really happen.

    It still bothers me as I don't seem to have the tools to verify such an event happened or do research.
    Solfe

Similar Threads

  1. Im sorry! But please read!
    By Ticket To Heaven in forum Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-10, 08:18 AM
  2. What to read first?
    By mgladstonez in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-26, 12:47 AM
  3. How does this read?
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-01, 03:01 AM
  4. Read this
    By skywatcher in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-14, 03:10 AM
  5. Must Read!!!
    By Deep_Eye in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •