July 16, 2004
Earth To Oregonian: It's 'Bridgehead' Not 'Beachhead'
Paper Again Misses Most Straightforward Factual Information
Back in May, when we first started covering meetings of the Central Eastside Urban Renewal Advisory Committee, we noted that Oregonian reporter Wade Nkrumah insisted on calling the development in question the Burnside Beachhead rather than the actual Burnside Bridgehead.
As indicated back then, it's not diffcult to know this rather straightforward factual information, since the proposal is clearly labelled on every piece of material and documentation related to it, including right there on the main page of the Portland Development Commission, let alone the draft RFP, or any of the other things available about it.
Now, doing this mislabeling once arguably could just be sloppy. But twice? In today's Oregonian, they do it again in an article by the same reporter. "Beachhead." Three times in the course of the article.
(Not to mention that while they accurately convey a neighborhood leader's concern about market research, they don't bother to mention that it was raised about the traffic and market analyses, not the RFP itself -- analyses which were requested before there even was an RFP process to open up the discussion beyond a Home Depot.)
At any rate, as we said, and understanding the dangers of being snarky, we have to ask: Is anyone over at The Oregonian actually paying attention to this particular story or are they absentmindedly sleepwalking through it? Is there some reason we should be expected to trust their reporting on this project when they can't even get its clearly-designated name correct?
Comments (6)
mph on 16 Jul 2004
Funny.
I write about Linux a lot. For a while, several years back, I had this horrible mental tic where I'd mean to write "font" (as in "font server," "font manager," "font line") and I'd type "file." It bit me really hard on a few reviews just because we'd cut back so far on editorial staff that my stuff went live with no or very, very little oversight from anyone else.
Some readers were cool about it and knew it was a sort of typo (an embarrassing, silly one, but a typo), and they'd write in with a quiet correction. Others were pretty belligerent and said it showed I didn't know what I was talking about.
It went on for about a month, then I was over it.
I'm inclined to say "sloppy," but not necessarily ignorant or incompetent on the reportorial side. People have tics, and reporters are people, and they're usually on deadline. They also have editors, and they count on those editors to give their copy a hard look.
The editor should be the one who's most embarrassed.
p.s.: TypeKey isn't remembering that I'm signed in after a preview. Weird.
Dave Lister on 16 Jul 2004
A big box retailer in the central eastside will have the same effect on the small businesses in the area as the allied invasion of Normandy had on the Wehrmacht. I think "beachhead" is appropriate.
sarah gilbert on 16 Jul 2004
it's gotta be the spellcheck, and a lazy copy editor - you know, the same spellcheck that says "do you mean, 'cats'?" when you type the mayor's name ;) hey, maybe that's the reason for all those references to "abernathy."
The One True b!X on 16 Jul 2004
Re: spellcheck -- I thought about that and tested it in my own spellchecker. It didn't not suggest any replacements for "bridgehead."
Re: TypeKey -- Yes, there's a couple of kinks to be worked out yet, and that previous issue is one of them. Haven't tracked it down yet.
mph on 16 Jul 2004
It didn't not suggest any replacements for "bridgehead."
And apparently crashed the grammar checker.
That does it, b!X. Why should I trust any of your commentary on the editorial process if you can't be bothered to construct a proper sentence?!
The One True b!X on 17 Jul 2004
Yeah, yeah. I don't have a staff to help me catch these things y'know. ;)