"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:wC4yc.33

Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it
wrong.
On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his
statement.
Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to
the
site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?

WELL SAID! THANK YOU!

So why is that entire industry so impervious to correcting it's major
fault?

It's interesting hearing comments from people who say that anybody can be
a
journalist, who themselves don't even have a high school-level grasp of
their own language. There is no apostrophe in "its major fault." "It's"
is a contraction of "it is."

Geez...when your face is shoved into a toilet, don't hit the handle.

Don't get all pompous that if we can't write like an expert, we can't
comment.

Take that attitude (so commonplace in your field) and stick it where the sun
doesn't shine.


Now, addressing what Rich was getting at: Rather than bitching on
amUsenet,
have you actually bothered to correct a reporter or editor who misused the
term?

I've sent letters to the papers about major mistakes in facts (I don't
bother correcting their gramatical erros which are numerous) and got
NOTHING.

AAMOF, there's a website dedicated just to correcting errors in the NY Times
economic reporting.

Guess what their response is.

And, it turns out, the reporter in this case merely reported the
information as it was given to him. So, if the subject were to be
targetted
accurately it should read "Aviation industry screws up again," which makes
about as much sense.

Okay...here's a clue about the media: they don't report, they pontificate.
They are impervious to correction. They promote themselves (virtually) as
experts in every field.

And they wonder why their credibility is diminishing by the hour.

I understand your concern for your industry, but like so many other facets
of life, they're their own worst enemy. And
making childish excuses only exacerbate the problem.

Tom
--
Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts.