USA Today has lost it - or "exploded" it

USA Today has lost it.

I keep seeing USA Today printing that Columbia “exploded”.

Fortunately the reports involving the CAIB report seemed to avoid that mistake.

But I was belatedly reading an article by Michelle Kessler, in the Wed.
September 3rd edition. On page 2 of a cover story in the Money section, a story
about “Star-Gazing Tech Titans...” involved in private launch vehicles included
a sentence which read in part:

“The explosion of Space Shuttle Columbia......”

This is about the 3rd time I’ve noticed USA Today doing this. The most famous
was an article by Jim Oberg, which over his (not quite as strenuous as could
have been) objection the editors forced the word “explosion” (or exploded) into
his article rather than a more accurate word such as “disintegrated”, or “broke
up”.

With hyped-up use of words like that which falsely indicate what happened, how
will Monday’s editions refer to how John Ritter and Johnny Cash died? If they
are as insistent at using inaccurately hyped-up words as they are about using
“explosion” for Columbia, maybe they’ll refer to the “assassinations” of Ritter
and Cash? That a nice hyped up word for how someone died, even if totally
inaccurate. Just about as stupid.

- George Gassaway

I'm no pedant, but I agree that it must be said, mainly sub editors, insist
on using emotive and inaccurate terms for lots of things these days.

I did see the term, undisclosed complications, for The Cash death, which
almost asks the question as to why it was undisclosed. I imagine it was
undisclosed, in that it was not mentioned in the press release.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"GCGassaway" wrote in message
...
| USA Today has lost it.
|
| I keep seeing USA Today printing that Columbia "exploded".
|
| Fortunately the reports involving the CAIB report seemed to avoid that
mistake.
|
| But I was belatedly reading an article by Michelle Kessler, in the Wed.
| September 3rd edition. On page 2 of a cover story in the Money section, a
story
| about "Star-Gazing Tech Titans..." involved in private launch vehicles
included
| a sentence which read in part:
|
| "The explosion of Space Shuttle Columbia......"
|
| This is about the 3rd time I've noticed USA Today doing this. The most
famous
| was an article by Jim Oberg, which over his (not quite as strenuous as
could
| have been) objection the editors forced the word "explosion" (or exploded)
into
| his article rather than a more accurate word such as "disintegrated", or
"broke
| up".
|
| With hyped-up use of words like that which falsely indicate what happened,
how
| will Monday's editions refer to how John Ritter and Johnny Cash died? If
they
| are as insistent at using inaccurately hyped-up words as they are about
using
| "explosion" for Columbia, maybe they'll refer to the "assassinations" of
Ritter
| and Cash? That a nice hyped up word for how someone died, even if totally
| inaccurate. Just about as stupid.
|
| - George Gassaway
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/03

"GCGassaway" wrote in message
...
USA Today has lost it.

I keep seeing USA Today printing that Columbia "exploded".

well, USA Today has lots of typos these days, so whaddya whaddya.

--
Terrell Miller


"In the early days as often
as not the (rocket) exploded on or near the launch pad; that
seldom happens any longer."
-Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, vol.1 p.19

On 2003-09-14, Brian Gaff wrote:
I'm no pedant, but I agree that it must be said, mainly sub editors, insist
on using emotive and inaccurate terms for lots of things these days.

That's for sure! Somehow, if it's not "sensational" enough, it isn't
news. Typical US infotainment. But still, it seems the Columbia
disaster is quite bad enough without trying to hype it.

I did see the term, undisclosed complications, for The Cash death, which
almost asks the question as to why it was undisclosed. I imagine it was
undisclosed, in that it was not mentioned in the press release.

That's another favorite these days Nobody just dies anymore, you get
to listen to Dan Rather or his clones babbling about the cause, length
of illness and preferably an autopsy report, if available. Which is
one reason why I avoid listening to them whenever possible.

Steve


"GCGassaway" wrote in message
...
| USA Today has lost it.
|
| I keep seeing USA Today printing that Columbia "exploded".
|
| Fortunately the reports involving the CAIB report seemed to avoid that
mistake.
|
| But I was belatedly reading an article by Michelle Kessler, in the Wed.
| September 3rd edition. On page 2 of a cover story in the Money section, a
story
| about "Star-Gazing Tech Titans..." involved in private launch vehicles
included
| a sentence which read in part:
|
| "The explosion of Space Shuttle Columbia......"
|
| This is about the 3rd time I've noticed USA Today doing this. The most
famous
| was an article by Jim Oberg, which over his (not quite as strenuous as
could
| have been) objection the editors forced the word "explosion" (or exploded)
into
| his article rather than a more accurate word such as "disintegrated", or
"broke
| up".
|
| With hyped-up use of words like that which falsely indicate what happened,
how
| will Monday's editions refer to how John Ritter and Johnny Cash died? If
they
| are as insistent at using inaccurately hyped-up words as they are about
using
| "explosion" for Columbia, maybe they'll refer to the "assassinations" of
Ritter
| and Cash? That a nice hyped up word for how someone died, even if totally
| inaccurate. Just about as stupid.
|
| - George Gassaway
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 11/09/03

On or about Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:18:18 -0400, Terrell Miller
made the sensational claim that:
"GCGassaway" wrote in message
...
USA Today has lost it.

I keep seeing USA Today printing that Columbia "exploded".

well, USA Today has lots of typos these days, so whaddya whaddya.

I've been thinking about this, and IMO the term used should be "loss".
As in "the loss of the space shuttle Columbia". It covers what happened
without using a zillion words to describe the concept of "breakup" to the
average dolt.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

With hyped-up use of words like that which falsely indicate what happened,
how
will Monday's editions refer to how John Ritter and Johnny Cash died? If
they
are as insistent at using inaccurately hyped-up words as they are about
using
"explosion" for Columbia, maybe they'll refer to the "assassinations" of
Ritter
and Cash? That a nice hyped up word for how someone died, even if totally
inaccurate. Just about as stupid.

- George Gassaway

I've already seen one news story that said the cause of John Ritter's death
was "a heart attack" which is incorrect, it was a previously undetected
congenital heart defect. Same thing happened to Jim Fixx, the guy who
wrote the running books - everyone now has the popular but inaccurate
impression that he had a heart attack, and now use that as an excuse not to
run or exercise.

I agree that there seems to be no effort for accuracy in many of the
widely-read newspapers these days.


R

"Ron" wrote in message
nk.net...

With hyped-up use of words like that which falsely indicate what
happened,
how
will Monday's editions refer to how John Ritter and Johnny Cash died? If
they
are as insistent at using inaccurately hyped-up words as they are about
using
"explosion" for Columbia, maybe they'll refer to the "assassinations" of
Ritter
and Cash? That a nice hyped up word for how someone died, even if
totally
inaccurate. Just about as stupid.

- George Gassaway

I've already seen one news story that said the cause of John Ritter's
death
was "a heart attack" which is incorrect, it was a previously undetected
congenital heart defect. Same thing happened to Jim Fixx, the guy who
wrote the running books - everyone now has the popular but inaccurate
impression that he had a heart attack, and now use that as an excuse not
to
run or exercise.

Which explains why I was finally able to get an age-group ribbon in a 5k
race (4th place, but you gotta start somewhere). And I thought I was just
outliving my competitors.

"Ron"
I've already seen one news story that said the cause of John Ritter's death
was "a heart attack" which is incorrect, it was a previously undetected
congenital heart defect.

Heart attack was close enough. It was a "dissection" of the aorta. It came
apart. Not a "present at birth" congenital condition. Though a *genetic*
tendency may be indicated as his dad died of a "heart attack."

Well, at least USA Today proved they CAN use the term "breakup", even as
separate words too, "break up".

Unfortunately it wasn't about correcting prior errors in referring to Columbia
as "exploding".

It was about the all-world-important story about "Ben and Jen". Monday's
edition, Life section.

- George Gassaway

On 16 Sep 2003 09:13:55 GMT, (GCGassaway) wrote:

It was about the all-world-important story about "Ben and Jen". Monday's
edition, Life section.

....You mean Jennifer Afflick or Ben Lo?


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr