OK - a brief rant about slopping reporting and publishing
Apr 17, 2022 15:03:06 GMT -5
swash, huskyharper, and 1 more like this
Post by knightsbridgeaz on Apr 17, 2022 15:03:06 GMT -5
I know there are lots of examples in the political and book fields, but I want to highlight a WBB related bunch of nonsense in the local paper and a leading photo caption in a magazine I just bought on the Civil War:
- In the time leading up to Selection Sunday, and for a few days after, our local paper gave a lot of coverage to the prospect of Arizona hosting, including a fascinating interview with the Assoc. AD that prepared the bid, showing the NCAA that we met their various infrastructure, amenity and staffing requirements to host.
Never the less, in several articles there was an emphasis on attendance as a criteria. An article before the end of the season suggested the fans needed to come out to improve our chances of hosting; an opinion piece praised our attendance as a factor. Another article suggested that we would be selected instead of Oregon because we had (very slightly) better attendance. And most ridiculously, one article stated that the NCAA accepted the bids and then seeded the top 16 based on the bids.
Plus, they kept bringing up the 2 top 16 seeds that didn't host in recent history, both I think from the PAC, as some kind of horrid example, when, in fact, I remember that the schools in question were hosting either PAC12 championships in a different sport or high school tournaments and simply didn't have their court available. Still top 16 seeds and sort of contradicts the attendance hooey, but what else is new.
So - I bought Life's "The Civil War - Generals in the Field". On the first page inside, a title page is a photo of a Confederate regiment in 1861 with the additional info "At the time the Confederate Army was under the leadership of Samuel Cooper, the first man to be given the grade of general in the war".
No, no, and no. Granted, he was an early appointee as a brigadier general on March 16, 1861 and subsequently on May 16th was one of 5 full generals appointed, with the highest seniority. All of that said - he was Inspector General and Adjutant General for the Confederate Army throughout the war; he had been Adjutant General in the US Army when he resigned. This means he was the chief administrator. He was not in the "chain of command" leading troops (what was called a "line" position at the time) and said caption is simply wrong. He did not "lead the Confederate Army"; those who study the war find out that Confederate President Davis probably would claim that honor, as they really never had a general-in-chief (like the North, who had Scott, McClellan, Halleck and finally Grant in the position), at least until it was way too late.
I am just past frustrated with the inability to state facts correctly. Is it any wonder that things are so screwed up with the more serious matters when they can't get simple things right?
- In the time leading up to Selection Sunday, and for a few days after, our local paper gave a lot of coverage to the prospect of Arizona hosting, including a fascinating interview with the Assoc. AD that prepared the bid, showing the NCAA that we met their various infrastructure, amenity and staffing requirements to host.
Never the less, in several articles there was an emphasis on attendance as a criteria. An article before the end of the season suggested the fans needed to come out to improve our chances of hosting; an opinion piece praised our attendance as a factor. Another article suggested that we would be selected instead of Oregon because we had (very slightly) better attendance. And most ridiculously, one article stated that the NCAA accepted the bids and then seeded the top 16 based on the bids.
Plus, they kept bringing up the 2 top 16 seeds that didn't host in recent history, both I think from the PAC, as some kind of horrid example, when, in fact, I remember that the schools in question were hosting either PAC12 championships in a different sport or high school tournaments and simply didn't have their court available. Still top 16 seeds and sort of contradicts the attendance hooey, but what else is new.
So - I bought Life's "The Civil War - Generals in the Field". On the first page inside, a title page is a photo of a Confederate regiment in 1861 with the additional info "At the time the Confederate Army was under the leadership of Samuel Cooper, the first man to be given the grade of general in the war".
No, no, and no. Granted, he was an early appointee as a brigadier general on March 16, 1861 and subsequently on May 16th was one of 5 full generals appointed, with the highest seniority. All of that said - he was Inspector General and Adjutant General for the Confederate Army throughout the war; he had been Adjutant General in the US Army when he resigned. This means he was the chief administrator. He was not in the "chain of command" leading troops (what was called a "line" position at the time) and said caption is simply wrong. He did not "lead the Confederate Army"; those who study the war find out that Confederate President Davis probably would claim that honor, as they really never had a general-in-chief (like the North, who had Scott, McClellan, Halleck and finally Grant in the position), at least until it was way too late.
I am just past frustrated with the inability to state facts correctly. Is it any wonder that things are so screwed up with the more serious matters when they can't get simple things right?