Reuters Calls Bombing Near Jerusalem a 'Terrorist Attack' -- Using Scare Quotes
In a Wednesday story at Reuters ("Bombing near Jerusalem bus stop kills woman, 30 hurt") describing the aftermath of "a bomb planted in a bag exploded near a bus stop in a Jewish district of Jerusalem," reporter Crispian Balmer wrote the following (bold is mine):
Medics said three people were seriously hurt by the explosion, which hit one of the main routes into central Jerusalem in the afternoon, shattering the windows of a nearby bus. A woman in her 60s died in hospital.
Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.
My, my. It's as if the word "terrorist" was invented by the Israelis just for the occasion.
Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic reacted (HT Instapundit):
Dear Reuters, You Must Be Kidding
... Those Israelis and their crazy terms! I mean, referring to a fatal bombing of civilians as a "terrorist attack"? Who are they kidding? Everyone knows that a fatal bombing of Israeli civilians should be referred to as a "teachable moment." Or as a "venting of certain frustrations." Or as "an understandable reaction to Jewish perfidy." Or perhaps as "a very special episode of 'Cheers.'" Anything but "a terrorist attack." I suppose Reuters will mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 by referring to the attacks as "an exercise in urban renewal."
The mind reels.
That it does.
This is the same wire service which, with help from other press outlets, was treating us to so many deliberately doctored photos from Lebanon in relation to Israeli strikes against terrorists (no need for scare quotes) in 2006 that it gave rise to a new term which has made it into the Urban Dictionary -- fauxtography.
Perhaps the doctoring of photos has subsided; the doctoring of news clearly hasn't.
It's also clear that Crispian Balmer isn't keeping to the standard held up by Thomson Reuters CEO Tom Glocer (h/t LGF via Michelle Malkin) in the wake of the fauxtography scandal in December of 2006:
The final lesson we learned was this – more than ever the world needs a media company free from bias, independent, telling it as it really is, without the filter of national or political interest…
…Telling the story truthfully is more important than ever. Reporting it without spin and without editorializing is critical if history is to accurately record events.
If Glocer, who is still CEO, really believes this, he needs to have a talk with Crispian Balmer.
Final question: Glocer's bio indicates that "He is a director of Merck & Co., Inc." Conflict of interest in reporting on health care, anyone?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This is easy to understand.
Submitted by Chris Of Rights on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 1:36pm.
Just remember, Reuters is a "news service".
Terrorist attack or love tap.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 1:37pm.
Of course Tom, we must realize that that was quite a stretch for Reuters, as they probably consider such an event to be simply nice little nudge or, neighborly love tap, needed occasionally to keep the Israeli's in line.
(;~> gary
"...a special episode of Cheers."
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 1:38pm.
I love that!
Quotation marks can be
Submitted by trak65 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 2:00pm.
Quotation marks can be ambiguous. Here, in case the reader might think the report is just attributing the quoted words to the police, the reporter makes it clear that he thinks the term is not accurate. Rather, it should just be considered a normal skirmish in a military conflict where both sides observe the rules of war and neither side has the moral high ground.
Very ambiguous, especially
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:39pm.
Very ambiguous, especially immediately following "police said".
deleted by me
Submitted by almostacowboy on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:05pm.
almostacowboy77
Oops!
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:08pm.
Never mind. I was gonna say that I think Trak was saying what the reporter was meaning, not Trak.
The Israelis could eliminate their terrorist threat by following
Submitted by no tingly legs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 2:37pm.
Obama's lead, i.e. anytime a terrorist act is committed, call it something else. Whether it be Major Hasan murdering fellow soldiers, the Times Square Bomber (you know, the Obamacare opponent), the Arkansas Army recruiter murder, the underwear bomber, the Frankfurt Airport murder of two USAF personnel, etc. See? Problem solved. That way, Obama is 100% effective at preventing terrorism.
trak65
Submitted by gunguru on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:02pm.
I really hope that you don't believe what you wrote. The "Palestinians" are such low-life troublemakers that their fellow Islamists won't allow them to immigrate to their countries (i.e. Jordan, Syria, etc.) These are the same people who cheered and celebrated in the streets after 9/11; who fire rockets indiscriminately into Israeli neighborhoods, and who decapitate Jewish babies and murder their families in the dark of night. If Obama, Russia, Iran and the rest of the world's dictators weren't supporting these Arab terrorists, the Israelis could do the world a favor and just wipe out the whole lot----make all of Jerusalem a Jewish neighborhood. The planet's 6 billion people could breath a whole lot easier.
I was still channeling the
Submitted by trak65 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:21pm.
I was still channeling the Reuters reporter in the last sentence I wrote...should've been a little clearer. Obvious terrorism like blowing up civilians at a bus stop should be identified and villified.
trak has it right
Submitted by T Walt on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:26pm.
the reporter isn't using the quotes just to repeat the police statement, he uses them here to mock the statement. Basically the reporter is saying "yeah right"
He's using a direct quote to
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:33pm.
He's using a direct quote to mock the direct quote? That's quite a feat.
If he felt this was a
Submitted by T Walt on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:43pm.
If he felt this was a terrorist attack, he would have decribed the blast as such in his own words. Anybody to the right of Alan Grayson could sense he took issue with the description.
You must be unfamiliar with
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 5:09pm.
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of journalists getting statements from primary sources. It's all part of the who, what, when, why thing. This is basic reporting.
Speaking of 'unfamiliar', SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 5:35pm.
it is the 'who, what, when, why, where, and how" thing.
So much for your knowledge of "basic reporting".
Feel free to jump in any time with your less than stellar comments.
MD
It wasn't necessary to list
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 6:02pm.
It wasn't necessary to list them all in order to make the point. One would think that the use of "thing" would clue someone in on the informality and sarcasm.
BS as usual, Incestmo.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 6:04pm.
FYI, a police spokesman made the statement, verbally. The quotes were a politically-motivated editorial embellishment by the reporter.
When you get gas, do you say to the attendant ... I'd like 30 [quote] dollars [unquote] of regular?
True to form, you come down on the most asinine side possible on any given subject.
SoL, when Satchmo-Incestmo gets gas---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 6:18pm.
it erupts as emissions in the form of posts on threads here at NB's.
MD
MD and SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:37pm.
If NB is going to go all "new'" on us, they should have a "like" button on the comments especially when you guys start bashing idiot trolls..;-)
You just agreed with me: "a
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:09pm.
You just agreed with me: "a police spokesman made the statement." So since you say the policeman made the statement, how could the quote be a politically-motivated embellishment by the reporter?
Follow me closely, Incestmo:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:18pm.
People. Do. Not. Speak. With. Punctuation. Marks.
Why do I keep falling for this?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:18pm.
.
Follow me closely: when
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:44pm.
Follow me closely: when people are directly quoted in a news article, quotation marks are used to signify it. That's the case here, as you yourself admitted above.
What is your term Retard?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:07am.
Police said it was a "terrorist attack" -- Israel's term for a Palestinian strike.
Do tell us Mr. "Iz juz quoting a guy iz all" What is your term for a Palestinian strike on civilians.
And yes, the asinine side is
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:51pm.
And yes, the asinine side is saying that quotation marks mean someone is being directly quoted, not that a reporter is pretending to quote someone. That is a completely reasonable thing to say.
SatchelMouth, follow me closely---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:50pm.
NO ONE follows you closely.
MD
i dunno, he's doing a pretty good job...
Submitted by abeautifulperson on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:44pm.
... of spinning the wheels of several people around here. then again, you'd just be arguing about that "exclamation mark"... you know... the one from obama's speech??!
should it have been an exclamation mark?? or question mark?? or both. let's discuss that for a half hour.
abp---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:12pm.
being followed, as an oracle, and getting shadowed by people desirous of slapping you upside the head for being stupid are two entirely different things. :o)
MD
He was defining a term.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:17pm.
"He's using a direct quote to mock the direct quote?"
No, He wasnt quoting someone, he was defining a term. What else would you call the statement: "Israel's term for a Palestinian strike?" That was HIS qualifying statement, one given as a means of definition, and not a quote by someone else.
It's obvious that he wasn't quoting someone, he was defining the term "terrorist attack" to suit his own beliefs. Even a Reuters journalist know that you never use quotation marks in an indirect quote.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
We aren't discussing that
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:24pm.
We aren't discussing that part of the sentence. As I said, that's an entirely different matter. We are discussing the direct quote. "Terrorist attack" is a direct quote signified not only by the quotation marks, but by the start of the sentence, "Police said".
So, out of all of this
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:06pm.
You're taking issue with the term "scare quotes"?
Glad to see you're still on the ball there "incestmo the Jew hater".
I never said anything about
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:20pm.
I never said anything about his use of the term, silly as it may be. Jew hater? WTF are you talking about?
Then why are you so bent outta shape
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:27pm.
About the quotation marks? You are completely wrong regarding same, but you can't let it go.
And if you aren't bothered by the sentence as constructed by the reporter, which is only to minimize the action of the palestinian animals, then you probably ain't got the best interests of the Jews at heart.
You see, you coulda just condemned the reporter's attempted downplaying of the palestinians' actions here instead of worrying about our inferences of the use of the quotation marks.
RESTLESS---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:46pm.
You set the trap, and the fool, I mean Incestmo, jumped in it with both feet.
That was beautiful, man.
MD
This is all a big hullabaloo over NOTHING!
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:22pm.
Or at least it's misdirected. Scare quotes, direct quotes, whatever...
The reporter is adhering to the stated policy of Reuters regarding the usage of the term terrorist or terrorism.
People may think the policy stinks, but it is what it is. Rip Reuters...not the reporter.
Jer
I'll rip both Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:28pm.
If the reporter had a problem with it, he/she could find employment elsewhere.
Then maybe it would be better to email all Reuters
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:34pm.
employees and demand resignations.
Jer
Why Jer
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:43pm.
They have the right to work for Reuters, and I have the right to judge their biases based on same.
Never underestimate the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:45pm.
Never underestimate the combination of ignorance and lack of critical reading skills.
That would be impossible, SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:49pm.
as you expand that particular envelope with every post of yours.
MD
We don't
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:49pm.
That's why you are getting smacked around this entire thread. Basic understanding of grammar, syntax, and sentence construction eludes you.
What do you expect from a
Submitted by Thoreau on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 2:41pm.
What do you expect from a news organization that hires islamic jihadist photographers and happily becomes human shields for Kaddafi. Don't sweat the small stuff. Reuters has and is doing much worse.
Or - gasp! - it could be a
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:34pm.
Or - gasp! - it could be a direct quote! You can find similar examples of direct quotes in almost every single article in every single newspaper every day.
Except that
Submitted by T Walt on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:30pm.
he throws in "Israel's term for a Palestinian strike". Like he doesn't believe it was used properly.
I'm talking about the quote,
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:36pm.
I'm talking about the quote, not what followed. That's a different matter. Do you think the police didn't call it a terrorist attack?
He didn't "quote" a policeman
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 6:02pm.
He pretended to quote "police."
He didn't quote a specific person or agency for attribution (if so, it would have been "the police").
Thus, Balmer didn't need the quote marks.
As for Balmer believing that "terrorist attack" is "Israel's term for a Palestinian strike" -- well, Goldberg took care of that.
This is how non-agendized journalists do it.
Here is another example of doing it right. And here. And here.
Note how even an AP headline writer here ("Obama telephones Netanyahu over terrorist bombing") doesn't need scare quotes.
It's really a shame that you come to discussions so rhetorically ill-equipped.
He didn't pretend to quote
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:18pm.
He didn't pretend to quote them at all. That's ridiculous unfounded speculation. The sentence begins "police said" and the quote follows. So you're going to equivocate over the absence of the unneeded article "the"? Please. (i can only imagine your outrage over the non-use of articles by europeans when talking about university or hospital). As for the other, I said that was a different matter entirely. The AP headline didn't need quotes because it wasn't quoting anyone. And you have the chutzpah to call someone ill-equipped?
Yeah, you're "ill-equipped" ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:38pm.
... and your comment is a real howler.
Seems you're the one
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:47pm.
Seems you're the one ill-equipped to have a reasonable discussion since you immediately resort to personal attacks rather than debate the merits of an opposing view. Sadly, it's not the first time.
Look out Tom*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:47pm.
"chutzpah" may also require "consent". I see that you have met Incestmo ...;-)
Now THAT, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:57pm.
was funny !
I see ol' Satchmo-Satchelmouth-Pervmo-Incestmo found his way to troll fallback position #7:
When you are getting beat about the head and shoulders, each blow ringing more severely than it's predecessor, use the line "I see you have no substantive argument and must therefore resort to name calling. Sad."
Too predictable.
MD
It's strange MD*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 9:02pm.
These raggedy trolls dont last long at NB. Even tombaker, incestmo's offspring, has gone. Must be time for "shift change".
Yep, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 9:06pm.
they're off to get some mo' sto' bought ones for safety in numbers.
MD
Don't hid from the syntax.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:02pm.
"I'm talking about the quote, not what followed."
Don't hide from the syntax of the sentence. That wasn't a quotation as you insist, it was a declarative statement.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hiding? What are you talking
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:26pm.
Hiding? What are you talking about? "Terrorist attack" is most definitely a direct quote.
No, it isn't a quote at all.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:49pm.
No, it isn't a quote at all. No person is named giving that quote, so it can't be a direct quote. There's no indication that it's a fragment of a quote, for the same reason - that no source for that quote is named (no citation). As a matter of fact, there's nothing to indicate that it's a quote at all. All we can determine is that he is using quotes to indicate (highlight) a descriptive term, which he defines after the dash.
The use of quotation marks in my use of "terrorist activity" doesn't indicate that I'm making a direct quote, or even an indirect quote. It's indicating that I'm highlighting a descriptive term. It is the quotation marks that highlights that descriptive term.
The same is true in the Reuters article. Those quotation marks are used to indicate a descriptive term ("terrorist activity"), not a direct, or even indirect, quote. We know this definitively because not only is no direct citation given (not even an "according to unnamed sources"), he then precedes to DEFINE that descriptive term for us in the same sentence.
HOW can you reasonably claim that the quotation marks are used to indicate a direct quote when the syntax of the sentence itself tells us otherwise?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obviously you don't know what
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:56pm.
Obviously you don't know what a direct quote is. A person doesn't have to be named in order for it to be a direct quote. The source was identified at the start of the sentence: "police said". Nothing to indicate it's a quote at all??? LOL! What the hell do you think quotation marks indicate?
It's you who who doesn't know.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:02pm.
It's YOU who doesnt know what a direct quote is. Here's a clue for you: How to Use Quotation Marks.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By the way
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:05pm.
By the way, the use of "police said," or any other descriptive title, would indicate an INDIRECT quote, and those never need quotation marks. Nice try, though.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I urge you to educate
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:15pm.
I urge you to educate yourself. You do not know what direct or indirect quotes are, and as such, have no idea how to properly identify them. You are completely wrong.
Again. Boy people love this argument.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:20am.
Pervmo: I'm talking about the quote, not what followed.
What followed was part of the same sentence. It can't be isolated. But whatever, you is wicked smart.
Too bad it's not a direct quote.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:21pm.
"Or - gasp! - it could be a direct quote! "
Too bad, for your argument anyways, that its not a direct quote. That would involve the use of a punctuation mark, like a comma or ellipsis, within the quotation marks themselves. ALL of his punctuations are outside of the quotation marks. A journalist, or their editor, knows how direct quotes are formatted.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No it wouldn't.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:27pm.
No it wouldn't.
Yes, it would.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:31pm.
Yes, it would, unless grammar isn't important. Name a SINGLE journalist who believes that grammar isn't important. How many years of college do they attend learning grammar?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Journalism does not often
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:47pm.
Journalism does not often comply with strict, traditional grammar rules largely due to format and space, but that's another discussion. You're creating a strawman. This isn't the first time you've been intellectually dishonest here.
You're just searching for excuses
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:54pm.
That's bullcrap. Journalists PRIDE themselves on the proper use of grammar. They spend YEARS learning how important grammar is in journalism itself. Do you REALLY believe that they'd just, what, IGNORE the importance of grammar in publicly published writing? It's a sure bet that their EDITORS wouldn't allow that! Their own reputations are based upon it!
Nice try, Satchmo, but, man, you've GOT to come up with better excuses than that. That's just lame!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I hate to shatter your
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:13pm.
I hate to shatter your illusion, but journalism is not a repository of proper English grammar. Far from it. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic.
Pull your head out of the sand.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:58pm.
Pull your head out of the sand. Name a single English speaking journalist that didn't take English Grammar as part of their journalism courses. Grammar is so relevant to their profession that they base their own reputations on how well they understand it and apply it.
WHY do you keep insisting that grammar isn't important in journalism? You know full well that it does.
Here's what I think: You know that "sloppy grammar" is so lame of an excuse that you just can't find a logical argument to actually support it. Therefor, you dismiss it as irrelevant, even though you know that is IS relevant , especially when YOU made the claim that the grammar of the sentence itself (the use of quotation marks) indicates a direct quote.
So, tell me, is grammar relevant in this discussion or isn't it. Does the grammatical structure of the sentence indicate a direct quote or not? Yo can;t have it both ways.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
More intellectual dishonesty.
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:13am.
More intellectual dishonesty. This is exactly how you behaved last time. I've never once said grammar isn't important in journalism; I said that journalism doesn't follow strict, traditional grammatical rules largely due to format and space. That doesn't mean it isn't important, only that journalism is not the shining example of proper grammar. And fyi, punctuation does not equal grammar; they are not interchangeable things. Punctuation is only for the written word. That is what we are discussing: punctuation, specifically, quotation marks.
Look jackass
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:38am.
Journalism most emphatically follows "strict, traditional grammatical rules".
Editorials may not, but journalistic articles most definitely do.
Are you getting dizzy?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:33am.
Let me get this straight, you're not arguing that proper grammar isn't important in journalism, you're just arguing that journalism doesn't follow proper grammatical rules because it's not important due to the fact that grammar is only important when used in the written word, even though journalism IS the written word. That is what you're saying, isn't it?. Man, that circular logic must really make your head spin!
What do you think "formatting and space" is, anyways? It IS Grammar. It's that very formatting and spacing and how they are structured that we call "grammar." So, grammar isn't important when applying grammar, at least in journalism, eh? Yea, right, and you accuse ME of intellectual dishonesty!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Good grief, dude. You have no
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:05am.
Good grief, dude. You have no clue. Formatting and space refers to the layout of the paper and the limited space of column inches. It has nothing to do with grammar. Congratulations, though; you have successfully veered the discussion way off topic.
Good grief, dude. You have no
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:08am.
Good grief, dude. You have no clue. Formatting and space refers to the layout of the paper and the typography, and the limited space of column inches. It has nothing to do with grammar. Congratulations, though; you have successfully veered the discussion way off topic.
My goodness, fwankie has a lot of contenders to the throne.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:46am.
King Fwankie the Beclowner is dead. Long live King Satchmo the Beclowner.
Wow. Not only are you a pervert
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:20pm.
You're an ignorant pervert at that.
If the term "terrorist attack" were a direct quote, there would indeed be an elipsis INSIDE the quotation marks, just as Cobra stated.
"Police said it was a 'terrorist attack'".
"Police Chief Johnson said it was a '...terrorist attack'".
See the difference? The ... indicates that something was said before "terrorist attack" by somebody and the reporter omitted it either because it was irrelevant or unnecessary.
Given the construction of the sentence, the quotation marks are indeed unnecessary and were likely used by the reporter to convey incredulity or mocking sarcasm.
Incorrect for a variety of
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:26pm.
Incorrect for a variety of reasons, not the least being the assumption that "terrorist attack" was part of a sentence. For example, REPORTER: How would you characterize this event? POLICE: Terrorist attack.
I think I'm going to buy stock in tinfoil. I'll be sure to make a killing.
Thanks for proving my point
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:29pm.
You used no quotation marks in your indirect quotes.
Thanks for playing.
Deleted
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:37pm.
Deleted, sorry, responded to the wrong post
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Huh?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:40pm.
I agree with you that the Reuters quote was indirect, and that being the case, the quotation marks were unneeded and likely used to convey a "yeah right" attitude.
I was just using incestmo's bad grammar against him to jerk his chain.
Sorry, thought you were somone else
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:46pm.
Sorry, I thought I was responsible to him. My Bad!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
No problem
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:46pm.
It happens.
You need all you can get.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:49pm.
You need all the tin foil you can get, just to keep your own irony in check!
First you believe that an indirect quote needs quotation marks, then you don't even use them yourself in YOUR indirect quote. That tells m,e that, yes, you know that you were wrong in your claim that it was a direct quote, and that, no, you just can't admit it.
Admit it, he was NOT making a direct quote, and he used the quotation marks to indicate a descriptive term that he felt needed to be defined for us, as if the term "terrorist attack' is used only by Israeli police (supposedly only when describe a Palestinian "strike" as if it was a common military action) and no one else would understand its meaning. Why else would he define it IN THE SAME SENTENCE, the one aspect of this entire argument that you keep ignoring?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I said buy stock, not stock
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:51pm.
I said buy stock, not stock up. I never said an indirect quote needs quotation marks. Once again you are being intellectually dishonest. Additionally, I didn't quote anyone, directly or indirectly, in my example. So not only do you not know what a direct and indirect quote are, you don't know what a hypothetical is or how to recognize one.
Really, you're going with that?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:59pm.
You sure as hell indirectly quoted a hypothetical reporter and a hypothetical police spokesman in you hypothetical indirect quote. And you omitted the quotation marks.
Then you respond to being called on it with this ridiculous tripe.
Game, set and match.
LOL. oh my god. You just
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:14am.
LOL. oh my god. You just can't make this stuff up.
????
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:41am.
I realize you're dumb and all, but are you saying that correct punctuation is not important in works of fiction?
Look in the mirror, buddy.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:25am.
Look in the mirror, buddy, You're the one who's not being intellectually honest in this debate. You know, or at least you should know, that sentence structure, syntax, will convey the meaning of that sentence as much as the words contained within it. You know, or you should know, that quotation marks are used more than for just an indication of direct quotes. You know, or you should know, why and when dashes are used. You know, or you should know, what a descriptive term is and how they are indicated by punctuations like quotation marks. You know, or should know, that journalism is based upon the understand and use of proper grammar in order to convey meanings without ambiguity. You know that journalists try to be as grammatically correct as possible because their reputations, and the reputations of the services they work for, are dependent upon it, and that their editors will correct any grammatical mistake if any are made. You know all this and more. Yet despite knowing all this, you ether dismiss it, ignore it, or, hypocritically, dishonestly try to argue against it while accusing other of intellectual dishonesty! If you want to see an example of someone practicing intellectual dishonesty, you only need to look at yourself.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
In addition, Satchmo....
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:48am.
In addition, Satchmo, you're own arguments defeat your premise. You claim that the quotation marks indicate a direct quote, When I argued that direct quotes always include a citation, a source, and the lack of this citation indicates that it is NOT a direct quote, you point to the statement of "police said" and claim that this is a citation when, in fact it is a SUMMATION. That, in and of itself, negates the claim that this is a direct quote. Summations are NEVER used as citations for direct quotes.
The author is NOT quoting someone, he's summarizing something more than one people has said. In this case, in the case of an indirect quote or summation, as any journalist would tell you, the use of quotation marks isn't warranted (so much for trying to "save space," as you also claimed. According to your other argument, those quotations marks aren't even necessary at all because grammar is far less important than type-space, remember?). Therefor, those quotation marks MUST be there for a different reason. That reason is reviled by what is contained in the rest of the sentence itself (which you don't seem to care about). Those quotation marks are used to indicate a descriptive term, one that the author defines in the sentence itself, and NOT to indicate a direct quote, as you claim.
As was said before: game, set, and match.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Just one example, from AP
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 2:25am.
Link:
While German police had no immediate information on what could be behind the shooting, a member of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Patrick Meehan, said in Washington that it looked like a terrorist attack.
Note the lack of quote marks.
I could cite dozens of others without breaking a sweat.
Crispian Balmer put "terrorist attack" in quotes not because someone said it, but because he wanted to call attention to it, so he could then demean it.
You are utterly without an argument, and totally unable to recognize when you've been made to look totally foolish.
Everywhere you can see
Submitted by Andrew Biggs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:45pm.
Everywhere you can see terrorists. I mean, you actually believe that half a world are terrorists
Nothing new here, nothing news either.
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:02pm.
Reuter-rooters is worthless as anything more than a opinion blog.
It wasn't
Submitted by sam12663 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:33pm.
a 'terrorist attack'; it was a 'kinetic explosive display of disagreement'.
Sorry, just trying to get a job with the Obama administration.
It's amazing how Palestinian
Submitted by T Walt on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:33pm.
It's amazing how Palestinian terrorists have won over the hearts and minds of liberals here and elsewhere. To the extent that when they plant a bomb on a civilian bus it's no longer a ok to call it a "terrorist attack".
Reuters assumes; the police describe
Submitted by Alfred J. Lemire on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 5:18pm.
I am not familiar enough with Reuters to know whether the reporter (writer, in AP usage, which is a good thing, since AP writers disgrace reporting) and presumably at least one editor follow company policy. But the police description is accurate: “terrorist attack.” “Palestinian strike” robs the description of its intent and nature.
I looked at the left-influenced (in this writer’s view) Oxford American Dictionary (OAM) in a computer “widget.” It refers to the strike that occurs when a union walks off the job to get a company to change some policy or policies the union protests. it explains bowling and fishing strikes, the strikes that occur when people find a financially rewarding store of minerals, gems, or a large, previously unknown source of potential fuel and the fuel's derivatives, the strikes that Red Sox pitchers unfailingly throw at Yankee batters (with no bat contact with the ball), in at least one fan’s dreams, which usage leads to the figurative “two strikes against” so-and-so for such-and-such, or a horizontal stratum in some geological feature.
The OAM’s second meaning of strike, not given above, is close to what Reuters prefers: “a sudden attack, typically a military one.” But to think of what happened as “a sudden attack,” which the OAM implies need not be military, cheats everyone: the terrorist or terrorists, who wanted to make people afraid to live in Jerusalem, the civilian population there, who know quite well that “strike” in the Reuters usage tries to deodorize a stinking act, and the readers, who have to translate the propagandistic (my judgment) “Palestinian strike” into its actual description, the one the police used:
It was a terrorist attack.
And Reuters added another reason to distrust what it supplies to readers. The Manchester Union-Leader, where the incomparable Joe McQuaid is Publisher, has switched from AP to Reuters service. One hopes that that was done for financial reasons. Neither service can be trusted. However, what are the other available choices? I’d vote for Scripps-Howard, but it wouldn’t cover enough territory. So readers will have to wonder what AP or Reuters do not cover and try to figure out what really happened or is going on from the articles they do provide.
And we wonder why Western Civilation is losing the GWOT...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:39pm.
...to a bunch of bass-ackward, 7th Century primitives.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Unfortunately Dave,
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:45pm.
They have a whole bunch of enablers in the media, Hollywood, lefty politicians etc...
Very sad it is.
And millions of moderate Muslims will be hitting the streets...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 7:51pm.
...to loudly protest this heinous act carried out by one of their more "radical" adherents any day now.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
In secret Dave
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:08pm.
So we wont notice. It's humility
Reuters, for your information
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:29pm.
"Medics said three people were seriously hurt by the explosion, which hit one of the main routes into central Jerusalem in the afternoon, shattering the windows of a nearby bus. A woman in her 60s died in hospital."
Ruters, for your information, and to help dispel any possible confusion in the future, planted explosive never HIT a target. That is impossible. Only MOVING explosive devices can ever "hit" anything.
This man is trying to make it seem as if the "bomb" was some type of artillery shell, or any other conventional military weapon, when, in fact, it was an IED. Who uses IED's again?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Just in case you didn't know,
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 10:50pm.
Just in case you didn't know, hit has multiple definitions.
You're right!
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:17pm.
Scrath's argument hit a wall so he changed course.
Cobra hit Scratch upside the head with logic and fact so hard Scratch saw old Popeye reruns.
After getting befuddled by his own "arguments" Scratch decided to take another bong hit.
At the last family reunion Scratch was heard muttering several times, "I'd hit that!"
Rukus---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 3:19am.
Excellent !!
LMAO.
MD
Name one
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 1:03am.
Name one military use for "hit" other than a moving object, explosive or not, striking or reaching a target. Just one. I dare you. Even the term "hitting the beach" means that you literally "hit" the beach with your body, your foot, your legs, whatever. Planted explosives never "hit" anything.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
You're doing it again. I said
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:18am.
You're doing it again. I said hit has multiple definitions; you are dishonestly trying to constrict the statement and definition into beingsolely military . I would say that I don't understand why you so readily default to fallacies and distortions, but that woildn't be true.
Doing what King Beclowner?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:55am.
Did he say the Holiday shopping season starts before Black Friday? Or putting his stamp of approval on incest? Or any of the other Satchmo Stupids I was cataloguing before I got distracted with Dead Zippers and the most profane troll ever a NewsBusters?
1. Incest is A-OK
2. The U.S does not have a 2 party system.
3. The poor in the United States will rejoice at a 30% sales tax.
4. President Bush should have waited to sell the Iraq War until 2005, 2 years after it started.
5. Ixchel, one of the numerous pagan gods of the pagan ancient Mayan religion was not pagan, although all the other gods of the pagan ancient Mayan religion were.
6. The split image half black/half white picture of President Obama was not racist because President Obama is half white and/or half black.
7. Journalists have a right to conduct interviews even though they were exlicitly told not to and Sarah Palin should be forced to answer any questions even though she explicitly refused to because she was signing books not conducting interviews. Whatever, tie her down and force her to answer questions because it is a public sidewalk.
8. There is no such thing as public airwaves.
9. Yippee for Assange and wikileaks! Expose everything that our secretive government has been covering up.
10. It is called the holiday shopping season because it includes Thanksgiving even though the holiday shopping season does not start until Black Friday, the day AFTER Thanksgiving.
11. People exchange gifts on Thanksgiving too.
12. Executions should be televised.
13. Sarah Palin is stupid.
14. The Supreme Court is actually the 14th Court of Appeals.
15. There is no such thing as greed.
16. Only nwahs nwahs is allowed to use the word retard.
Now that those 2 trolls are banned, I do have an open slot for listing the Stupids and Lies of Stupid Lying trolls. Maybe I could pick up where I left off.
If I may add a couple of my personal favorites:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 9:25am.
"It's A-OK for little boys to wear dresses."
"Kwanzaa is not an African-American holiday."
By the way, why are you
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 8:34am.
By the way, why are you referring to it as a military action instead of an act of terrorism?