Comments on: The Washington Post has 50% to 80% fewer editors than they apparently need http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/ JFK: ''we choose to go to the ...'' Wed, 23 May 2012 01:00:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Snow http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25987 Snow Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:20:18 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25987 lol - reminds me of when I lived in Seattle "20% chance of rain means it'll rain for 20% of the time today". That works in Seattle...... lol - reminds me of when I lived in Seattle “20% chance of rain means it’ll rain for 20% of the time today”. That works in Seattle……

]]> By: HM http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25973 HM Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:17:30 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25973 The WaPo is my home paper and after MANY years of loyal subscription I recently dropped back to Sunday only. They have really gone down hill. This example is particularly bad because it's misleading and confusing for folks who wouldn't necessarily think to question it. But the constant daily copy-edit mistakes drive me crazy, misspellings, using the wrong words etc. One in particular made me really mad because it used an incorrect homophone for an over-the-phone quote, which made the person being quoted look wrong when it was really the reporter (or the copy-editor) who made the mistake (the person being interviewed likely didn't stop to spell the word!). So, in pursuit of saving money (laying off editors), they have lost at least one daily subscriber, and likely a lot more. The WaPo is my home paper and after MANY years of loyal subscription I recently dropped back to Sunday only. They have really gone down hill. This example is particularly bad because it’s misleading and confusing for folks who wouldn’t necessarily think to question it. But the constant daily copy-edit mistakes drive me crazy, misspellings, using the wrong words etc.

One in particular made me really mad because it used an incorrect homophone for an over-the-phone quote, which made the person being quoted look wrong when it was really the reporter (or the copy-editor) who made the mistake (the person being interviewed likely didn’t stop to spell the word!).

So, in pursuit of saving money (laying off editors), they have lost at least one daily subscriber, and likely a lot more.

]]> By: Ted http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25955 Ted Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:21:26 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25955 Usual John Thanks for the info. Usual John

Thanks for the info.

]]> By: Usual John http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25950 Usual John Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:01:40 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25950 Ted - Yes, that's exactly what it sounds like they mean. That's the problem. What they should have meant was that the average (median) broadband subscriber receives data at only 50% of the advertised speed, and the transmission rate drops to 30 - 40% of the advertised speed during the busiest time, 7 - 10 pm. Ted - Yes, that’s exactly what it sounds like they mean. That’s the problem. What they should have meant was that the average (median) broadband subscriber receives data at only 50% of the advertised speed, and the transmission rate drops to 30 - 40% of the advertised speed during the busiest time, 7 - 10 pm.

]]> By: S.P. Charles http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25949 S.P. Charles Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:00:53 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25949 Ted, I'm afraid the reading error is yours. As has already been pointed out, the article's apparently been edited since Bill posted the opening lines. This discussion is based on the original version. Ted, I’m afraid the reading error is yours. As has already been pointed out, the article’s apparently been edited since Bill posted the opening lines. This discussion is based on the original version.

]]> By: firedmyass http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25948 firedmyass Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:58:47 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25948 Um, Ted... next time you hear that whistling noise, look up. It may be another point going over your head. Um, Ted… next time you hear that whistling noise, look up. It may be another point going over your head.

]]> By: Ted http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25947 Ted Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:28:32 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25947 "The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that more than half of all high-speed Internet subscribers are receiving data at slower speeds than what was advertised to them. In a report on the progress of its plan to bring broadband access to all American homes, the FCC reported several findings, including that actual broadband speeds lagged advertised speeds by as much as 50 to 80 percent." Seems to me they mean half of people with BB connections receive speeds 50 to 80% slower then advertised. Not to flame, but have we all lost the ability to read more then 140 characters at a time? “The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that more than half of all high-speed Internet subscribers are receiving data at slower speeds than what was advertised to them. In a report on the progress of its plan to bring broadband access to all American homes, the FCC reported several findings, including that actual broadband speeds lagged advertised speeds by as much as 50 to 80 percent.”

Seems to me they mean half of people with BB connections receive speeds 50 to 80% slower then advertised. Not to flame, but have we all lost the ability to read more then 140 characters at a time?

]]> By: Kevin A http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25946 Kevin A Thu, 01 Oct 2009 21:15:10 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25946 DPWally - I understand your point but in this case, I think the usage is okay as the measurements are [thought to be] both statistical (having a range of error based on unknown factors at the data source) and may depend on the time of day (e.g. "up to 50% right after school or work" and "up to 80% during p*rn time"). I really love and appreciate all the people who went out and found the original research and all the variations of its presentation. Thanks. Personally, I think users should be billed per GB as well as GB/hr, with a possible pass on public service announcements. For the same reason, I don't rent an apartment any more in buildings where there's only one furnace and heat is included in the rent. Half of the people opened their windows rather than turn off their radiators, as if it would magically have no effect on next year's rent. DPWally - I understand your point but in this case, I think the usage is okay as the measurements are [thought to be] both statistical (having a range of error based on unknown factors at the data source) and may depend on the time of day (e.g. “up to 50% right after school or work” and “up to 80% during p*rn time”).

I really love and appreciate all the people who went out and found the original research and all the variations of its presentation. Thanks.

Personally, I think users should be billed per GB as well as GB/hr, with a possible pass on public service announcements.
For the same reason, I don’t rent an apartment any more in buildings where there’s only one furnace and heat is included in the rent. Half of the people opened their windows rather than turn off their radiators, as if it would magically have no effect on next year’s rent.

]]> By: DPWally http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25944 DPWally Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:29:21 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25944 Aren't these 2 things the same? "as much as 50 to 80 percent" "as much as 80 percent" The first one has a meaningless "50 to " in it, which is exactly the sort of thing an editor should remove. Aren’t these 2 things the same?
“as much as 50 to 80 percent”
“as much as 80 percent”

The first one has a meaningless “50 to ” in it, which is exactly the sort of thing an editor should remove.

]]> By: Charlene http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25942 Charlene Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:38:08 +0000 http://comicsidontunderstand.com/wordpress/2009/10/01/the-washington-post-has-50-to-80-fewer-editors-than-they-apparently-need/#comment-25942 I gave up on the news media's ability to report anything science or technology-based earlier this year, when a study was headlined in almost every newspaper, "Restricting calorie intake increases lifespan". The study in reality showed only that very thin people don't die of obesity-related conditions. The researchers came up with a list of diseases that they considered to be "age-related". When a subject in their study group died, their death was only considered part of the study if they died of one of these conditions. Anyone who died of anything else was excluded. Those who restricted calories were less likely to die of one of these supposed age-related conditions. The problem was that the diseases the researchers identified as "age-related" are really those related to obesity, not age. Worse, some of the causes of death they excluded are known to be age-related, but are more likely to affect the very thin. So they basically gamed the system, excluding any death that could be related to restricted calorie intake in order to manipulate the figures. The bad science went completely uncaught by major media organizations, who basically printed the press release. In the real world, very thin people who restrict calorie intake have a much shorter life expectancy than the average or simply overweight, and not much longer than the obese. As one doctor interviewed for a rebuttal said (and I paraphrase), "on a life expectancy basis, better to be forty pounds overweight than ten pounds underweight". I gave up on the news media’s ability to report anything science or technology-based earlier this year, when a study was headlined in almost every newspaper, “Restricting calorie intake increases lifespan”. The study in reality showed only that very thin people don’t die of obesity-related conditions.

The researchers came up with a list of diseases that they considered to be “age-related”. When a subject in their study group died, their death was only considered part of the study if they died of one of these conditions. Anyone who died of anything else was excluded. Those who restricted calories were less likely to die of one of these supposed age-related conditions.

The problem was that the diseases the researchers identified as “age-related” are really those related to obesity, not age. Worse, some of the causes of death they excluded are known to be age-related, but are more likely to affect the very thin. So they basically gamed the system, excluding any death that could be related to restricted calorie intake in order to manipulate the figures. The bad science went completely uncaught by major media organizations, who basically printed the press release.

In the real world, very thin people who restrict calorie intake have a much shorter life expectancy than the average or simply overweight, and not much longer than the obese. As one doctor interviewed for a rebuttal said (and I paraphrase), “on a life expectancy basis, better to be forty pounds overweight than ten pounds underweight”.

]]>