Comments on: Very unfortunate headline

By: AlsoRan

AlsoRan — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:05:07 +0000

Oh, please. I don’t think any people of color, gays, non-xtians (I’m not xtian, by the way) were “harmed”, either. I’ve seen much worse that were intentional, so getting all upset over some obvious inadvertent namespace near-collision seems rather silly.

Let’s save our outrage for the truly outrageous, shall we?

By: BCDarr

BCDarr — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:27:57 +0000

I think I’d find it easier to ‘lighten up’ if reuters followed through on their ‘regret’ and the headline was changed.
But I suppose it’s just too darned funny to worry about making things right.
By the way, thanks for quoting the bible and all. It reminded me that, thankfully, no straight, white christian was harmed in the making of that headline. As always.

By: AlsoRan

AlsoRan — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 22:39:06 +0000

I admit I didn’t see the “problem” until I read the headline about four times, so I can see where some copy editor in a hurry could make a mistake.

Lighten up, folks.

He who is without sin and all that, you know. . .

By: BCDarr

BCDarr — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 16:43:33 +0000

I can’t help but notice that you’ve been unable to change your ‘very unfortunate headline’ which also happens to be the most popular and the most shared article today.

Don’t tell me, let me guess. Very unfortunate.

By: BCDarr

BCDarr — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:31:18 +0000

A busy editor ‘failed to spot an obvious problem’? As a child I was taught to own up to a mistake, not excuse my way out of it.
What, may I ask, is the policy of reuters about belittling people for being different? Joke about it unless you’re caught then say ‘oops’?
A substantial drop in integrity and objectivity is indeed an ‘obvious problem’ for reuters. But congratulations on side stepping your responsibilities as a professional body. Neat trick.