the Ed Cone piece is far more damning than the editorial insertion. I’ve seen and heard of enough screw ups by editorial staff* to make me think that editor inserted TPM without Skube ever seeing it or having a chance to sign off on that particular mistake, as opposed to the overall mistake which the column obviously is.
(*For instance, trivially but very illustratively, replacing "tack" with "tact" in a volume of nautical history by an author who, from other details in the book, knows that sort of nautical terminology like the back of his hand. The mispelling obviously came from an underintelligent revisor somewhere in the bowels of the publishing house.) |
| |
Written By:
kishnevi
URL:
http://
|
the Ed Cone piece is far more damning than the editorial insertion. I think you’re missing the ironic point - "thorough fact-checking and verification". Whether it was the editor or Skube, it wasn’t fact-checked or verified. Yet that was a major complaint against blogs in the piece.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
|
I didn’t miss the ironic point. But that particular lack of factchecking is probably editorial. Whereas the lack of research revealed in the Cone piece is definitely Skubic and far more devestating. It’s a barrage of cannon, whereas Marshall’s post is merely a burst of riflefire. |
| |
Written By:
kishnevi
URL:
http://
|
But that particular lack of factchecking is probably editorial. Yes, but the point Skube is making is that the role of the editor is to ensure the fact-checking and verification are properly done (something, he contends, blogs lack). |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|