I don't see the problem here.

Dan Froomkin will undoubtedly have numerous opportunities to practice the quality journalism that will draw readers and that sells.

WAPO? Who cares. They made a decision to get rid of, really, the only reporter on the staff that I ever followed. Let them deal with their problems going down this road. It's one more reason to not consider the Washington Post as a credible, fair and balanced world class news source, and another reason not to read the Post.

These news outlets are digging their own graves, and it's certainly another reason why I will shed no tears over the impending demise of the Washington Post.

Once I tried to get a woman to write less by using only c, k, or q, and unexpired long enough to tell the tail.

Is Goedel supposed to learn how to write the word "yourself" or is he supposed to learn how to write himself, one assumes a letter. Perhaps you spelled write incorrectly, and meant to say right, in which case I agree. Goedel should learn how to right himself. As should all hyper-anal winged-monkey guardians of grammarian righteousness. Isn't it hard enough to write two or three blog posts a day, without being hounded by some ex-school marm haunting the internets for fresh prey?

@Goedel

Far better to get the gender wrong, I think, than the number.

Maybe to you. I like gender-neutral language, and appreciate it. It helps me to focus on the author's point, and to not get diverted by angry thoughts about the patriarchy. The someone/their construction is status quo where I am (California).

Not bad... for an American. *sniff*

In your first sentence alone, you left out the period after "Prof," the apostrophe after "Higgins," and you misspelled "query."

Then you misspelled "apposition."

I think you meant "the" instead of "to" here: A gender neutral, singular noun is often combined with the possessive adjective "their" or the pronoun "they" in order to avoid use of "his" or "him" when to reference could be to a woman or a girl.

And this: Far better to get the gender wrong, I think, than the number. is not a complete sentence.

You're welcome.

God, why do people like you do what you do? Do you not realize conventions of language pivot on social acceptance? Or do you realize and not care for the reality, just to pretend superiority? Your sort of nonsense embarrasses those who teach English for a living.

What are you adding to this conversation worthy of emergence?

To clarify, I think English has evolved and adopted their as a perfectly acceptable gender-neutral reference to a single individual. For the very reasons you suggest, no doubt, but it's a fait accompli. Like arguing that "fine" means "precise". Well yes technically that's true but if you try and use it that way to communicate professionally no one will understand you and you will get fired. Because the usage has changed.

Sunday, March 26, 2006

2:00 PM PT

Shorter Deborah Howell:

The Post and the Whole Picture in Iraq

We're doing our best to publish all the good news we can find in Iraq but Christ, you know it ain't easy.

Plus: The way things are going, they're gonna crucify me. Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell is pained - pained! - by a letter from a reader who claims to believe that Washington Post journalists are allied with the "terrorists":

One critic of the coverage is John Dowd, a Washington lawyer: "I can't subscribe to your newspaper anymore because you have lost all sense of balance and perspective in your coverage of the war in Iraq and against the terrorists. It is clear to those of us who have our sons and daughters who are in harm's way that you support the terrorists and you are opposed to the efforts of our Marines, all who are sacrificing so that you are free to publish without interference."

Dowd's son Dan is a Marine captain, just back from his second tour as a helicopter pilot in Iraq. Dowd sees his son and other U.S. and Iraqi soldiers "as the most selfless people I've known in my life." I found his letter haunting; it pains me that he would think Post journalists support terrorists.

Think about that.

A reader accuses Washington Post journalists of siding with Goldstein - er, terrorists - and Deborah Howell doesn't think, this man is either demented or trying to manipulate me. She doesn't crumple up and toss the letter and she doesn't add it to her loony folder, already overflowing with missives from crazed liberals. She does not take offense at the slur on her colleagues. Quite the opposite. She takes the complaint seriously.

Think about that again.

Seriously: should Deborah Howell be taken seriously?

See Also: More discussion of the assault on the media at Avedon Carol's SideShow and Peter Daou's Report.

See Also II: Read or scroll past the Howard Kurtz part to the Howell discussion at Why Are We Back In Iraq? (via memeorandum).

Update: Who is this John Dowd person, anyway? An unnamed commenter writes:

I read your post on Ms. Howell’s angst over being called a traitor by "John Dowd, a Washington lawyer".

Mr. Dowd is a trained republican partisan, not a "right wing nut case" (ok, maybe he is that too).

He is actually a well connected, former justice Dept attorney who works out of one of the largest firms in the city -- Akin and Gump.

Here is a list of his political contributions, as a start: link.

He also maxed out to Bush: link.

He actually represented McCain in the keating 5 controversy, and Az republican governor Symington in his fraud trial a few years back.

Deborah howell shouldn’t have been pained or haunted -- she should have just googled him -- it took me 5 minutes to figure out who he was and where he was coming from.

And, digby explains why we're doing all this while uggabugga finds David Broder finding Deborah Howell's analysis very thoughtful.

http://www.busybusybusy.com/b3_arc_06_0320.shtml

(the rest of the page is a little arcana of wingnuts, v.2006. I had to double check the date)

--------------------------

j-h-c she's batshit stupid AND crazy.