The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Monday, January 01, 2007

ABC Outrageous One Word Editorial Dishonors Lost Serviceman


Not much shocks me from the liberal left these days. However, I am both shocked and angered at ABC for an editorial potshot they delivered with a single word. For those not familiar with the word "sic", here is the definition:
sic: thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally. - Answers.com definition
When the media is quoting somebody, they will add this little word to show that the person made some error in their statement - that the error resides with the source, not the quoter.

So ABC is running a story on the 3000th U.S. death in Iraq. This is a warped fixation in itself that the media has been engaged in - as if only round numbers in the death count are significant. Numbers 2999, 1999, 1467, 4, 29, etc. were all significant. Round numbers are more easily sensationalized. The 3000th U.S. Serviceman to lose his life in Iraq is Army Specialist Dustin Donica. Good Morning America was relating the story and how Dustin's MySpace site had comments from those giving tribute to their fallen friend. ABC showed one of those quotes on the screen as follows:
"You were one of my best friends and I'll never forget you. All my prayers go to your family and I'll see you again." (sic)
As written, anyone with a functioning brain would realize that the friend was stating that they would meet again in the next life. It is simply not possible that anyone reading would think the friend expected to see Dustin at a gathering or in his home or anywhere on earth. Somehow ABC felt the need to editorialize the comments and point out their bias against belief in the afterlife. With one word, ABC gives the friend a backhand for being so foolish to believe in life after death. They felt it so strongly that they decided to mock the tribute with their little "sic".

This not only mocks the author of the tribute, it dishonors the fallen soldier. To take this man's death as an opportunity to dispute a tenet of religious faith is worse than walking on his grave. I am sure many will think this insignificant. However, when you vividly picture the conscious effort of an editor adding the word it is very significant. What thoughts passed through the mind of such a person? It is a shame and ABC needs to do more than apologize.

Hat tip: Newsbusters

8 Comments:

  • At 7:42 PM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    To be fair (ahem!), could the "sic" be for the missing comma before the "and" in that last sentence? That's the only thing I can see that might possibly be an error, outside of the heaven reference.

    What a bunch of self-righteous, condescending snobs over at ABC News.

     
  • At 11:42 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    If it is for the comma, it would also be ridiculous. I would like to see their track record of using sic for commas to see which situations they did not apply it to.

     
  • At 2:19 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    Don't you ever get sic [sic] of ingesting and being woefully misled by all the paranoid ravings and wild-eyed fabrications of Newsbusters, Powerline, Malkin, etc?

    Since you never bother to correct your frequently fact-botched blog, here's the update from your paranoid, fact-botched source, Newsbusters:

    "An ABC News executive has been in touch to say that the [sic] was intended to refer to a misspelling of I'll as ill in the original MySpace posting by SPC Donica's friend, and that the [sic] was mistakenly left in when the misspelling was corrected in the screen graphic."

    This is from the original ABC news article:

    Friends continue to write messages on Donica's Web site. The most recent posts, in the days shortly after Donica's death, resembled earlier posts, reaching out to a friend a world away.

    "Hey bro, we're gonna miss you but never forget you," said one.

    "Always in my prayers brother, see you at the gates," said another.

    "Hey my friend," said another post. "Just wanted to say there is no one else in the world like you and ill (emphasis added) never find another friend like you. You were one of my best friends and I will never forget you. All my love and prayers go to your family and I'll see you again."


    Newsbusters at least had the courage to put up this update (though I'm suspicious it is doctored), especially since it further betrays the dishonesty behind their original post. You'll note that the misspelling is not in the screen capture. It is from the previous sentence. Even so, the update is still rife with the inherent paranoia of the original posting:

    "That a member of the MSM would have intentionally sought to slight traditional religious beliefs with the use of the [sic] is entirely plausible."

    Since in your wild paranoia you've all obviously forgotten, the MSM is the element that shows nonstop Christmas parades and pageants and tree lightings and evening masses and tabernacle choirs from October to January. The screen graphics and station identifiers are holiday-themed every year without fail. Beyond that, the 700 Club, Davey & Goliath reruns and their ilk still isn't enough televised religion for you?

    This not only mocks the author of the tribute, it dishonors the fallen soldier. To take this man's death as an opportunity to dispute a tenet of religious faith is worse than walking on his grave. I am sure many will think this insignificant. However, when you vividly picture the conscious effort of an editor adding the word it is very significant. What thoughts passed through the mind of such a person? It is a shame and ABC needs to do more than apologize. - AICS

    It's tragic that Newsbusters so completely misled you, your heartstrings pulled so mercilessly that you were compelled to buy their twisted, paranoid message hook line and sinker without bothering to check it out. So you raged onto the internet with your renewed indignation at the MSM firmly in place, only to find a bowl of crow with your name on it.

    It's easy to picture the conscious effort of an editor who is bound by journalistic integrity inserting a [sic] into a quote when there has been a misspelling. That's their job. To provide reliable accurate quotes. What you and Newsbusters have done is create a crisis where there was none. Outrageous, dishonor, backhanded, mocking are just some of the weighty words you've used here.

    But no such outraged posts about MSM doggery and their botched TV graphics mislabeling Republican pedophile Mark Foley or a United States Senator's name tagged under a picture of bin Laden.

    And once again, no outraged posts from you about the MSM failing YET AGAIN to adequately report a terrorist attack. The Madrid Airport on 12/30/06. An 800kg car bomb. But once again, since these weren't Muslim or Arab terrorists, you could care less, right?

    No outraged posts from you about those MSM "mistakes" because they deliver the results you want.

    Those of you who piously masquerade around as "media watchdogs," keeping your watchful eye on the MSM and readily doling out verdicts about "self-righteous, condescending snobs over at ___ News" are being revealed for the hacks you are and are quickly becoming a laughing stock. Nobody is less interested in media accuracy than you are. Correcting media mistakes is so plainly not your agenda. You can be regularly counted on to jump on any innuendo or rumor or whispered suspicion as long as it promotes your rigid ideological views and political loyalties and hatreds. I'd have thought you had enough crow to eat after the election, but obviously not. At least you wisely chose to stay out of the fray of John "the lonely diner" Kerry and steered clear of cheering the "death" of Iran's Ayatollah.

    That media inaccuracy is not your concern is about as glaring and obvious a fact as one can discover. You don't seem to have noticed that this entire Iraq war was based upon inaccurate reporting -- a whole series of false claims about Saddam Hussein, the state of the Iraqi weapons program, its relationship to Al Qaeda, its involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the cost of our invasion, the consequences of it.

    I don't think I have ever seen a single post written by any of the wingnut blogosphere examining or decrying the sloppy, inaccurate reporting of the MSM which endorsed every false claim by the Bush administration which drove the country to invade Iraq.

    If we hadn't invaded Iraq, SPC Donica would still be alive.

    So would 3000+ other US service men and women. 20,000+ would not be severely wounded. 400,000+ Iraqi civilians would not be dead.

    And we would not have misspent $500 billion in US taxpayer money on the despicable war profiteering of unchecked Halliburton and contractor fraud.

     
  • At 4:53 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    patriot,

    Talk about errors. Even if the sic was left accidentally, ABC deserved the clubbing they received from me and Newsbusters. I have a very hard time buying this explanation in total.

    First, the sic was not even after the sentence that had the error. The sentence the sic is claimed to go with was chopped out of the graphic.

    Second, most of the time I see a sic used it is right after the word in question. Not always, but most often.

    Third, there were no elipsis dots in the beginning to show that they were coming in the middle of a quote.

    The whole thing is so sloppy that it defies belief. I am not convinced that the sic was not placed where it was to perform a subtle slap that Newsbusters and my post alludes to. Writers are frequently playing around with their work to hide subtle messages; why not editors? They could have placed the (sic) right after the 'ill' but did not. When they chopped the sentence with the 'ill' the placement of the (sic) became too obvious.

    I can't prove it was purposeful, but this level of sloppiness as an alternative explanation is just as hard to swallow.

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Anonymous patriot said…

    First, the sic was not even after the sentence that had the error. The sentence the sic is claimed to go with was chopped out of the graphic.

    Personally, I didn't see the broadcast as it happened. Did you? All we have to go on is the static graphic posted by Newsbusters. This could easily be a screengrab after the first sentence has rolled by.

    Second, most of the time I see a sic used it is right after the word in question. Not always, but most often.

    Agreed.

    Third, there were no elipsis dots in the beginning to show that they were coming in the middle of a quote.

    See my first response.

    The whole thing is so sloppy that it defies belief.

    If the broadcast was as the Newsbusters screengrab shows it, then yes, it was sloppy, but more likely on the video editor's part than the writer's. But certainly this is no more sloppy than labeling Mark Foley with "D-FL" (this happened over the course of multiple broadcasts) or a picture of bin Laden with a tag of "Where's Obama?" and hundreds of other examples we could go on and on about. You ever done TV? I have, and while a lot of pre-planning goes on, once the studio is live, its flying by the seat of your pants time.

    And all this is DEFINITELY nowhere near as sloppy as the reporting was leading up to the invasion, which again I will remind you is the reason that SPC Donica is dead in the first place.

    I am not convinced that the sic was not placed where it was to perform a subtle slap that Newsbusters and my post alludes to.

    It's your choice to be that paranoid. Does that really make life better for you?

    In light of what is a truly obvious American media that shows exponentially more crosses than menoras or crescents or maypoles (all of which, incidentally, have their own versions of afterlife too), it's amazing that you and a whole host of those like you got into such a lather about it. And you call liberals wild conspiracy nuts?

    We're at 3015 US dead today. 11 this month already.

     
  • At 9:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    [url=http://idisk.mac.com/forsyn/Public/rinnai-tankless-water-heater.html]rinnai tankless water heater[/url]
    [url=http://idisk.mac.com/forsyn/Public/solar-water-heater.html]solar water heater[/url]

     
  • At 11:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    [url=http://rolexx.110mb.com/swiss-rolex-replica-watch.html]swiss rolex replica watch[/url]
    [url=http://rolexx.110mb.com/cellini-fake-rolex.html]cellini fake rolex[/url]

     
  • At 8:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    [url=http://idisk.mac.com/mabilnik/Public/camera-cellular-phone.html]camera cellular phone[/url]
    [url=http://idisk.mac.com/mabilnik/Public/cellular-phone-comparison.html]cellular phone comparison[/url] - [url=http://idisk.mac.com/mabilnik/Public/cellular-phone-game.html]cellular phone game[/url] - [url=http://idisk.mac.com/mabilnik/Public/cellular-phone-ring.html]cellular phone ring[/url]

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home