Reading abstracts for Week 8

 This is my best abstract for Advanced Editing yet, if I do say so myself!

 

I read “Who You Callin’ Ungrammatical?” by Jan Freeman of the Boston Globe and looked at Paul Brians’ “List of Common Errors in English” page.

            I admit I read the Globe article because I use the word whom and am against its demise. I’m not so pedantic that I correct people if they use one when they should have used the other, but I use whom in my writing and even in my speech because I like being correct and as specific as possible.

            However, once I really thought about it, I decided it may just be time for whom to go. After all, we don’t say thou or shan’t anymore — English evolves.

            This is the gist of the Globe article. It was written in response to a reader complaining about a headline: ”Who are you calling working class?” The reader argues that it should have been ”Whom are you calling working class?” and technically, he or she is right. But even the newspaper staff there thought this was a silly claim, and they found some people who study English and agree: ”Beginning a question with whom in contemporary standard English would not just be unusual, it would be bizarre,” says linguist Geoffrey Pullum, coauthor of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. ”Insisting on whom, as some people still do when writing for print, is more and more looking like an affectation.”

            Even worse, I think, than not using whom when it should have been used is using it when it should not have been. Possibly in an effort to adopt the affectation Pullum describes, I’ve heard and read people throw a whom into a sentence incorrectly, presumably because they think it makes them sound smart. I’ve seen the same thing happen with the usage of I in a compound objective case: “This could not be a prouder moment for him and I.” A Globe reader who responded to the other reader’s initial complaint noted that the hypercorrect whom ”is the blind spot of literate Americans.”

 

            Paul Brians’ “List of Common Errors in English” is very extensive and a good resource, and, considering the other article I read, I decided to look at his who/whom entry.

            He offers the standard explanation that who is used in the subjective case and whom is used in the objective case, but he also goes further and includes his own analysis, which I like. Brians brings up much the same argument as the Globe article in that he says whom isn’t really used to begin a sentence any longer, and in many cases, it just comes off as being showy.

            I like this helpful tip he gives: “Just try the ‘he or him’ test, and if it’s still not clear, go with ‘who.’ You’ll bother fewer people and have a fair chance of being right.”

Reading abstracts for Week 7

This week, I read “Before You Publish a Rape Victim’s Name…” from the Ethics section and “Can Suicide Coverage Lead to Copycats?” from the Taste & Sensitivity section. I chose these two articles because both these issues are red flags in a journalism newsroom, and writers and editors often aren’t sure how to approach stories related to these subjects — if at all.

 

            When it comes to rape, many people who have not been close to the experience, including journalists, have considered arguments for publishing victims’ names. By keeping the victims nameless and faceless, aren’t we making the story less real and doing them even more harm? Kelly McBride, a member of the Ethics Faculty at the Poynter Institute, spoke with a number of rape victims, crisis counselors and nurses, and she found the answer was overwhelmingly “no.”

            Even those who were familiar with journalistic practice and who realized that preserving victims’ anonymity would likely lead to a lack of empathy from readers were still very much against providing names and details. This is an important fact for journalists to realize before they campaign for full disclosure in news stories.

            Rather, McBride says, the goal of publications should be to portray rapes more accurately. First of all, most rape victims are children. Statistics are thrown out such as “650,000 women a year are victims of rape,” but in actuality it’s 300,000 women and 350,000 girls, which is horrible. Secondly, the majority of victims are raped by someone they know, and usually it happens through the use of manipulation or incapacitation through drugs or alcohol.

            Newspapers almost always give more inches and prominence to the sensational rape stories: the ones involving violence or kidnapping. Typical rape stories are assigned to the briefs section. This dichotomy leaves the public generally uninformed about the true nature of rape.

 

            The same can be said of suicide stories. According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, the majority of suicides are sensationalized and mislead readers about typical suicide cases.

            Most people who commit suicide were depressed, whether that fact was known to family members or not. In Jamieson’s study of suicide stories in the New York Times, however, only about 7 percent of stories mentioned a history of mental illness. Instead, the stories were sensationalized, often being given flashy or romantic headlines and describing in detail how the person committed suicide.

            Excessive detail leads to another, more important problem than public ignorance: the possibility of copycats. News stories in Vienna about an increasing number of people jumping in front of subway cars to commit suicide were extensive and graphic. People who had been contemplating suicide read the details in the papers and decided to try the same method. When social scientists observed this trend, they notified the newspapers. When reporting on the suicides then dropped, there were 80 percent fewer attempts.

            A number of public health organizations released recommendations in 2001 for reporters covering suicide. The guidelines urge reporters to avoid mentioning the method of suicide in the headline, avoid prominent or repeated reporting on an individual suicide, avoid detailed descriptions of the method and avoid romanticizing the act of suicide or suggesting that such acts are the inexplicable acts of otherwise happy and normal individuals. However, that same year the Annenberg Public Policy Center interviewed 61 reporters and 15 editors who had reported on acts of suicide, and it found no awareness of the guidelines. During my two years at the Alligator we covered student suicides a number of times, and I had no idea the recommendations existed, and I’m fairly sure the other editors didn’t, either.

 

            What’s important to remember about the touchy topics of rape and suicide is that journalists should try to do no harm. Generally, we do go for the more sensational stories and we do use the more romantic headlines because it’s proven that that’s what people like to read. I don’t think ordinary, albeit accurate, stories portraying rape and suicide will ever be given the prominence of more high-profile and atypical cases because first and foremost, newspapers try to draw in readers. Many times I would say that this method of getting people to read more stories is fine, because we all know we’d rather read an interesting story than a run-of-the-mill one about the same topic. However, these sensitive cases are instances where I have to disagree on the method. Both rape and suicide are very sensitive topics, not just for the victims but also for relatives and friends, and journalists can have no idea what it’s like unless they’ve experienced it. I still don’t think anonymous stories indicative of the norm will be given the same number of inches or the same prominence in a paper as the sensational stories. But if nothing else except to be tactful, I would recommend that journalists at least stop romanticizing the stories they do print and refrain from providing more detail than what’s needed.

Reading abstracts for Week 6

I read “The Whoppers of 2007” in the Accuracy & Assertions of Fact category and “Accountability Journalism” in the Truth & Objectivity category.

            “The Whoppers of 2007” is about all the incorrect or misleading things politicians or their PACs said last year and tried to pass off as fact. What’s scary about all the entries FactCheck.org turned up is that most of them are obscure facts or figures that don’t sound outrageous. All these “facts” were broadcast and printed, so people heard or read them and had no reason to second-guess them and so took them to be true. Incorrect facts like these, whether reported wrong on purpose or by accident, are dangerous because they can then spread and perpetuate misinformation.

            “Accountability Journalism” suggests how reporters can take precautions to prevent false facts from getting published in the first place. The Poynter Institute offers different methods that may help: following up on given facts and what happens to signed bills and political promises seems like a good idea. Even if no incorrect facts are exposed, it will at least ensure that reporters hold politicians responsible for everything. I think AP Ohio’s “Reality Check” feature is a good idea. It makes sure reporters write about progress made or not made since bills were enacted and how this will affect Ohio citizens.

            Following up on previous political occurrences won’t help if news sources don’t initially catch errors from the first reporting. This can be helped with careful copy editing. The average copy editor probably won’t know if a fact seems incorrect off the top of his or her head unless it seems totally outrageous, but it is still up to copy editors to try to find out, even if facts seem plausible. That’s why having a variety of fact-checking resources is very valuable to copy editors.

Reading abstracts for Week 5

I chose to read the Method to our Mathness stories “How Not to Conduct a Presidential Poll” and “A Billion People Can Be Wrong.”

 

            The first story demonstrates all the things that can easily go wrong with polls that so few people remember to think about. The most obvious is, How do they decide parameters to answer their questions? The example given was a poll used to determine who is most likely to attend the Iowa caucus. How does the newspaper that made the poll decide what makes someone a likely candidate to go to the caucus?

Another problem is with the time period chosen to conduct polls. The one in question was a telephone poll performed between Christmas and New Year’s. The obvious problem here is that not many people will be home at this time of year, and the ones who are may have a particular trend in candidate preferences. Also, the smaller the poll group, the higher the margin for error. If a poll group is divided into further subgroups, there is a higher chance for discrepancies. Although the author of this particular critique, Barry Sussman, turned out to be wrong in calling out several of the Des Moines Register’s shortcomings, his ideas are basically true and must be taken into account when drawing conclusions from polls.

 

            Of course, knowledge like this about polls can be used to a businessperson’s advantage if they know how to manipulate numbers in their company’s favor. A good example is in the Sports Illustrated story “A Billion People Can Be Wrong.” The story looks into how Super Bowl publicists arrive at the claim that a billion people worldwide watch the big game. In actuality, the NFL reports that the Super Bowl will be broadcast to a potential audience of 1 billion. It’s the news services’ fault that they disregard the “potential” and interpret the 1 billion as fact, but it’s an error that works in the NFL’s favor.

 

            What both of these stories have in common is that they show that it definitely pays to pay attention when it comes to random numbers and statistics in news stories. Copy editors should be wary of taking claims at face value without questioning how the writer or publicist arrived at that determination. This is further emphasized by the third site I looked at, FactCheck.org. This site is limited to political facts, but it’s entirely for checking information about candidates and their policies, voting statistics and results, and also a source for recent happenings in the realm of politics. With the upcoming presidential election and all the ensuing news stories about it, this site is a valuable resource in straightening out claims that news stories make.

Reading abstracts for Week 4

I chose to examine the Sources & Subject article “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” by the Accuracy in Media site, the Story Ideas resource of the National Priorities Project site, and the State of the Press article “Liberal Media?” by the Media Matters site. These three resources have an important focus in common: the consideration of a potential bias in major news sources.

 

            “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” and the National Priorities Project site stood out to me because they take opposite stances on the consideration for bias. “Taboo Topics in Journalism Today” is actually about biases in the media, which proves to be ironic because the article is, itself, biased. It is published on the Accuracy in Media site, which is known for having a conservative stance, and predictably, the article is all about how liberal most media organizations are. The author Cliff Kincaid’s main argument is that most journalists are liberal, and their opinions come out in their reporting. As a result, most news organizations are seen as “liberal,” but they’re thought of as the norm that can either be continued — or rallied against (“Fox News is a response to the overwhelming liberal media bias,” Kincaid claims).

            He also goes on to list a detailed number of topics that, in his opinion, are impossible to report on objectively. I think Kincaid is either very stupid or very smart, because he proves his own point by not even being able to list the topics without making his personal bias obvious. An example:

·  DDT has saved lives and can save millions more. DDT has been demonized by the environmentalists and the media for decades, leading to its banning. This is changing somewhat, as even the New York Times has now editorialized that some use of DDT may be justified to save lives. But the Times’ recognition of the truth has come millions of lives too late.

            Kincaid ends his article with the prediction that liberal coverage may “get even worse,” citing a Los Angeles Times’ journalist’s decree that he thinks objective journalism is the way of the future. Kincaid acts as though this would be the end of what journalism is supposed to be, but in fact, it is the way of the future, as evidenced by the proliferation and success of news blogs.

 

            The National Priorities Project site, while not explicitly about media bias, still exemplifies bias, I think. It is a research organization’s site that clarifies federal data so that an everyday person can understand how their tax dollars are being spent. A banner on proclaims that the site does not endorse or oppose candidates or organizations it mentions, and the articles and information themselves don’t seem to, from what I’ve read, but its objectivity is betrayed by the side bars on the home page. (I know they’re probably not called “side bars,” but I’m Internet-illiterate, so please try to use your imagination.) They have one side bar, created by and credited to the NPP, with a running count of how much money has been spent on the war in Iraq. The counter says nothing else, but watching the numbers rapidly flip by (about $10,000 every 3 to 4 seconds) is surely meant to put thoughts in the viewer’s head. On the other side of the page, under the headline “NPP in Action,” there’s a bar with a quote from a national organizer who said he used the NPP’s fact sheets to demonstrate to people what the war in Iraq means for them at home. All this is under a subhead in red that says, “U.S. Labor Against the War.” So even though their articles and information may just support the facts, I think the reason underlying why they are making this information understandable definitely has some bias to it.

 

            Now we come to my favorite article I’ve read in this course so far this year, “Liberal Bias?” by the Media Matters site. I chose this article as my third because its topic is a great accompaniment to the previous two resources: The study many news outlets cite as being demonstrative of a significant liberal bias in the media is so biased itself that it’s practically useless.

            This article examines the study, “A Measure of Media Bias,” which was written by two former fellows of conservative think tanks. The study draws from many right-wing sources, but not from previously conducted scholarly work. 

            The method itself of conducting the study is flawed, too, I think. It’s based on how many times and how favorably a news source cites an organization discussed by a member of Congress, and whether that member of Congress is thought to be conservative or liberal. If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a “bias” on par with the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as the men in charge of the study define it, is what constitutes “media bias.”

            This raises important, and largely left out, question as to how “bias” can be defined. Is it how much coverage an entity gets? Which quotes are selected for print? Or is it not the words from the entity, but instead the reporter’s words used to judge bias?

The study analyzed in this Media Matters article was led by UCLA, which gives it a certain degree of credit. Many people already feel news outlets are biased in some way or another, generally more toward liberalism. So I can see how if one comes across a UCLA study proclaiming that news sources are biased, they would take it at face value, which is what many news outlets (even not-so-conservative ones) did when they gave it publication or air time. However, people did not stop and consider how this conclusion was reached, such as what factors were used to constitute bias, and even what the researchers used as a definition of “bias.”

I think this article by the Media Matters site demonstrates that while no article can be truly free of bias. People should take what they read with a grain of salt, get their information from several different news sources, and try to form their own opinions.

Reading abstracts for Week 3

Some of this week’s readings dealt with integrity and factual accuracy in journalism.

The case study we looked at in class, “Eagle Snatches Dog,” is one of the more benign examples of printing a fabricated story. When we read the story in class, we knew we were looking for something wrong, so it was easy to tear apart the editor who ran the story: “What was s/he thinking?” seemed to be the class’s consensus. However, once I took the time to think about what I would have done had I been the editor, the situation becomes much more understandable.

It is suspect that the story, which was incredible to begin with, had only one source, but it’s also easy to justify it. Plus, while the story related by the source is out of the ordinary, it’s also plausible.

Finally, and this is the part that really got to me as I was thinking about this case study — what were the real consequences of running an amusing, off-the-wall story that ended up being a fabrication? And if I were the editor, would I have run a correction?

Printing any kind of misinformation usually warrants the running of a correction, and I felt like I was being a bad journalist by questioning if I would. However, this isn’t a Jayson Blair/Janet Cooke kind of “fiasco,” as incorrectly reported stories are called in the “Skeptical Editing” article — no one was misquoted, nothing was plagiarized, there was no Pulitzer at stake and readers weren’t worse off for having read the story (unless some of them were real die-hard dog enthusiasts). It was just an amusing story, so my instincts say a retraction/correction would just be spoiling everyone’s fun. Where to draw the line, though?

In general, however, I think the principles outlined in “Skeptical Editing” are good ideas that are too often overlooked in the newsroom, particularly when you’re approaching deadline. As a copy editor, I know there have been nights where I’m so concerned with the little things — proofreading and checking names/titles — that I probably haven’t thought about the big picture of the story.

I especially like MacCluggage’s suggestion of having editors/copy editors from different areas in the newsroom go over each other’s work. If news desks became each other’s prosecutors and really scrutinized the stories and played devil’s advocate wherever possible, I think a lot more stories would be more concise and easier to understand.

 

One of this week’s sources was the Wikipedia entry on joint operating agreements among newspapers around the U.S. In theory, this seems like a good idea — with more than one newspaper in a city, you have the possibility of getting conflicting points of view, more information from one paper than the other, the same story told in different voices, etc. However, in practice, it seems most of these agreements fail and one of the two papers goes extinct anyway, leaving the other paper to take on all the previously shared expenses itself, not to mention reverting to having only one point of view again.

Why have more than half (18 out of 28) of the operating agreements failed? I don’t think there are that many cases of one paper being so markedly better than the other that the worse one disappears. Is it because newspapers in general are declining, so one paper per town is more than enough to sustain?

And what happens to the remaining paper after its competitor/ally is out of the picture? Do they ever have trouble meeting production costs? Do they lose advertisers or readers who were loyal only to the other paper?

 

The rest of this week’s readings deal with the issue of blogs being used as hyperlocal news sources. This can either be done very well or very badly, as demonstrated in the “Potemkin Village” article for the Online Journalism Review. I think it depends on talent, resources and location.

First of all, and Debbie Galant of the Barista blog essentially says this in her interview, talent makes a lot of difference. I don’t think her blog would be as popular if she didn’t already have the beginnings of a readership from her days with the New York Times. If just anyone were to start a local blog reporting on happenings in their town, it would probably take much longer for it to catch on.

Secondly, resources — be they having enough people to write/take photos, enough startup to last until advertisers are interested, or the means to get in touch with the people who should be interviewed — are probably just as important.

Location is not as big of a deal, but some cities definitely lend themselves more to the creation of a hyperlocal news blog than others. I would think more liberal cities with a younger (21 to 35) demographic would be more likely places for a news blog to flourish.

In general, I think if done correctly, hyperlocal news blogs can be a very valuable resource for their cities. I think residents would feel more comfortable posting comments on a blog page than typing letters to the editor of a paper, so blogs encourage more reader feedback. Also, blog writers have the ability to be more partial in their stories, which adds a more distinctive voice while also asking questions and making observations that a print news story wouldn’t. Stories that ask harder questions or call someone out can also deliver results more than a regular newspaper, which in turn could also encourage the papers to try to achieve the same results.

Ultimately, if blogs and newspapers start trying to outdo each other, there will be a level of competition that makes each strive to be better and better. News blogs coexisting with newspapers could have the modern equivalent to the relationship that was the premise in joint operating agreements.

One Less Grammar Blunder on TV

Unsurprisingly, one of my favorite books is “Eats, Shoots and Leaves” by Lynne Truss. I think I fell in love with her when I got to the part where she talks about her outrage at the title of a certain popular Hugh Grant film:

It should be “Two Weeks‘ Notice”! Truss said she wanted to put a giant apostrophe on a stick and stand beneath the theater marquee so that people would know what the title should have been.

It seems to me there have been a whole lot of similar grammatically incorrect titles out there recently. Within only 30 minutes of watching TV today, I saw commercials for

It should be “10 Items or Fewer.” Maybe TBS was trying to be very funny?

It should be “Welcome home, Roscoe Jenkins.” Apparently Roscoe’s teachers never taught him the comma used in direct addresses.

But the worst of all during that span of time was the commercials advertising Gardasil. Don’t get me wrong — I am all about preventing HPV. But Gardasil’s entire marketing campaign is based on their slogan “One less,” which they use to mean “One less woman to be at risk for cervical cancer.”

It should be “One fewer“! I realize that doesn’t make nearly as catchy of a slogan, but you’d think a company that’s trying to persuade you to pay lots of money to be stuck with giant needles would want to sound as credible as possible. The Gardasil commercial makes the same blunder as “10 Items or Fewer,” but the Gardasil one got to me so much more because the entire commercial is just woman after woman saying, “One less,” “One less.” My eye twitched each time, and by the end of the ad, I think I’d developed a facial tic.

Why are movies, TV shows, album titles, advertisements, etc. seemingly exempt from grammar rules? Do only a few people at the top decide the name for the show or film and don’t care enough to double-check it, or do many people look these things over and it just gets by them all? Does no one know what’s correct, or do they just sacrifice accuracy for whatever’s catchiest?

Follow-up question: Am I the only one bothered by these composition titles in flagrant violation of grammatical accuracy? Are there people who are pro-grammar but think I’m being too OCD with this?

Reading abstracts for Week 2

            Some of this week’s readings dealt with integrity and factual accuracy in journalism.

            The case study we looked at in class, “Eagle Snatches Dog,” is one of the more benign examples of printing a fabricated story. When we read the story in class, we knew we were looking for something wrong, so it was easy to tear apart the editor who ran the story: “What was s/he thinking?” seemed to be the class’s consensus. However, once I took the time to think about what I would have done had I been the editor, the situation becomes much more understandable.

            It is suspect that the story, which was incredible to begin with, had only one source, but it’s also easy to justify it. Plus, while the story related by the source is out of the ordinary, it’s also plausible.

            Finally, and this is the part that really got to me as I was thinking about this case study — what were the real consequences of running an amusing, off-the-wall story that ended up being a fabrication? And if I were the editor, would I have run a correction?

            Printing any kind of misinformation usually warrants the running of a correction, and I felt like I was being a bad journalist by questioning if I would. However, this isn’t a Jayson Blair/Janet Cooke kind of “fiasco,” as incorrectly reported stories are called in the “Skeptical Editing” article — no one was misquoted, nothing was plagiarized, there was no Pulitzer at stake and readers weren’t worse off for having read the story (unless some of them were real die-hard dog enthusiasts). It was just an amusing story, so my instincts say a retraction/correction would just be spoiling everyone’s fun. Where to draw the line, though?

            In general, however, I think the principles outlined in “Skeptical Editing” are good ideas that are too often overlooked in the newsroom, particularly when you’re approaching deadline. As a copy editor, I know there have been nights where I’m so concerned with the little things — proofreading and checking names/titles — that I probably haven’t thought about the big picture of the story.

            I especially like MacCluggage’s suggestion of having editors/copy editors from different areas in the newsroom go over each other’s work. If news desks became each other’s prosecutors and really scrutinized the stories and played devil’s advocate wherever possible, I think a lot more stories would be more concise and easier to understand.

 

            One of this week’s sources was the Wikipedia entry on joint operating agreements among newspapers around the U.S. In theory, this seems like a good idea — with more than one newspaper in a city, you have the possibility of getting conflicting points of view, more information from one paper than the other, the same story told in different voices, etc. However, in practice, it seems most of these agreements fail and one of the two papers goes extinct anyway, leaving the other paper to take on all the previously shared expenses itself, not to mention reverting to having only one point of view again.

            Why have more than half (18 out of 28) of the operating agreements failed? I don’t think there are that many cases of one paper being so markedly better than the other that the worse one disappears. Is it because newspapers in general are declining, so one paper per town is more than enough to sustain?

And what happens to the remaining paper after its competitor/ally is out of the picture? Do they ever have trouble meeting production costs? Do they lose advertisers or readers who were loyal only to the other paper?

 

            The rest of this week’s readings deal with the issue of blogs being used as hyperlocal news sources. This can either be done very well or very badly, as demonstrated in the “Potemkin Village” article for the Online Journalism Review. I think it depends on talent, resources and location.

            First of all, and Debbie Galant of the Barista blog essentially says this in her interview, talent makes a lot of difference. I don’t think her blog would be as popular if she didn’t already have the beginnings of a readership from her days with the New York Times. If just anyone were to start a local blog reporting on happenings in their town, it would probably take much longer for it to catch on.

            Secondly, resources — be they having enough people to write/take photos, enough startup to last until advertisers are interested, or the means to get in touch with the people who should be interviewed — are probably just as important.

            Location is not as big of a deal, but some cities definitely lend themselves more to the creation of a hyperlocal news blog than others. I would think more liberal cities with a younger (21 to 35) demographic would be more likely places for a news blog to flourish.

            In general, I think if done correctly, hyperlocal news blogs can be a very valuable resource for their cities. I think residents would feel more comfortable posting comments on a blog page than typing letters to the editor of a paper, so blogs encourage more reader feedback. Also, blog writers have the ability to be more partial in their stories, which adds a more distinctive voice while also asking questions and making observations that a print news story wouldn’t. Stories that ask harder questions or call someone out can also deliver results more than a regular newspaper, which in turn could also encourage the papers to try to achieve the same results.

Ultimately, if blogs and newspapers start trying to outdo each other, there will be a level of competition that makes each strive to be better and better. News blogs coexisting with newspapers could have the modern equivalent to the relationship that was the premise in joint operating agreements.

Hello world!

This blog, like others before it, is devoted to incorrect grammar, spelling, and punctuation mistakes in all their forms.

Well, actually, it’s an assignment for my capstone undergraduate journalism course at the University of Florida. We had to create a blog and “write about any issue surrounding the world of journalism — especially as it relates to editing in all its forms.” I want to be a copy editor, so I decided to use this blog as my way of passive-aggressively copy editing real life.

This is for a class, so there will be weekly responses to assigned readings and discussions, but I’m going to try to make most posts dedicated to righting the grammatical wrongs committed every day in the world around us.

For my first example, I’m going to turn against the very resource making all this possible and draw your attention to the default title I left for this blog post: “Hello world!” with no comma. For shame, WordPress.

The entries will get better from here on out. I’m going to start carrying my camera with me around UF’s campus and Gainesville, and I’ll be documenting errors committed against the English language by uploading the evidence here. Short of taking to supermarket signs with a Sharpie and inserting my own apostrophes (which I’ve been known to do), I figured this would be one of the more helpful ways to make people aware of why certain grammatical practices are right or wrong. At the very least, hopefully my fellow grammar nerds and my Advanced Editing professor will get a kick out of this.