Tuesday, April 19, 2005

The Slate: Forty-eight years as Shippensburg University's student paper

So here's something fun.
Think of a sentence which includes any for of the verb "got" (e.g., gotten, get, got, getting).
Now write that sentence down.
Show it to me. I don't care how.
I will show you a version of the sentence without the word "got" in it.
It will be more intelligent, grammatically more correct, and all-in-all a better sentence.

I had examples, but I'm lazy.

I really can't stand "got." It's just lazy.

Like my mom told me once about profanity, choosing to not use profanity shows an elevated vocabulary, denoting intelligence.
I was twelve at the time, so she didn't put it precisely that way. But you get the point.
I didn't take much stock in it at the time, since I was at the age where rebellion is the "in" thing to do. But now I'm understanding what she meant.

The same thing goes for "got."

Anyway, it's just one of those things that irks me.

No offense to anyone from Kutztown University, but a week ago at The Slate office, we had a copy of it.
Fourteen pictures appeared within its pages. Seven were taken by KU photographers (forgive me, but the name of their paper escapes me). The other seven were stolen. Not bought from the AP (like The Slate does), but stolen.

Worse than that, they were even attributed retardedly. That's right. Retardedly. My blog, my imaginary suffixes.
Some were from yahoo.com, some from this Website, some from that one. But one caught my eye.
It was the one of Terry Schiavo. Or, as Mel Gibson prefers to call her, "Terry Shiavo."

The attribution was "http://www.google.com."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Google is a search engine, yes?
Google is a tool, used to compile images and Web sites. How in the world could something as abstract as a search engine, and as concrete as a corporate campus, take a photo of a brain-dead woman in Florida?

No, please, I really want to know.

It just really pisses me off that papers at schools like KU pay their editors for contributions which, quite frankly, I found severely lacking conviction. Here at good old SU, the best our Student Senate can do is whine and ineffectively defend itself via letters-to-the-editor (letters sans any apparent answer or reason), not taking seriously --- even for a moment --- any chance of compensating the editors of what many have called "a better paper than most in the area."

Don't get me wrong, as only a copy editor I fully expect nothing. But I realize the weight of a paper like this, and what it demands from its staff.

So screw you, SA. And pay them.

UPDATE
The text appearing in the following color:       has been added. The reason for this Geoarge-Lucas-esque correction is none other than Mr. Kevin McGuire. Mr. McGuire pointed out a grammar error in the post, causing me to actually read what I wrote. I apologize, I didn't know it was that grammatically incorrect.

All I can say is, no one edits my copy. Apologies, and thank you, Kevin.

1 comment:

Kevin McGuire said...

Brendan, for such an intelligent and well versed intellectual as yourself, I hope you find the irony of the following phrase I found in your submission. Here is a phrase that was written by yourself...

"...the best our Student Senate can do is whine an defend themselves..."

Surely u will find the humor + irony in the phrase u jus typed as it rel8s 2 ur topic. If not let me no. I got your answer right here.