The Chronicle print edition (and, by extension, e-edition) does something peculiar on its editorial page. For its op-eds, an editor apparently summarizes each story, in the form of those graphical blurbs that allegedly make the newspaper easier to read (at least easier to read for easily distracted people who don’t much like reading). Some newspapers might actually take the time to find a representative quote from the op-ed, and feature it — but not our Chron. They want to summarize the thing for you.
Unfortunately, when people who aren’t that great at reading or writing try to summarize those who are good at these things (or at least people who are good enough to be syndicated), it can produce comical results. Here’s a partial screencap of a qualifying summary that appeared today:
Note the summary. Compare it with the headline (which should have been the first clue to the person who wrote it). Then compare it with the third full paragraph in the second column.
The Chron summary doesn’t actually summarize the column (available on Chron.com here, if you care to read it for yourself). Doh!
In other solid Chron work today, a story by Harvey Rice on a federal judgeship moving from Galveston to McAllen concluded as follows:
President Barack Obama will nominate a judge to fill the vacancy created by Kent’s resignation. The nomination must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
The last time we checked, a federal judge wasn’t a treaty. Therefore, a simple majority of the Senate (not two-thirds) is required for confirmation. It is true that the threat of filibuster means Presidents may need a cloture-proof majority for nominations, but that’s not two-thirds either. Doh!
UPDATE (07/25/09): Two weeks later, the Chronicle posted a correction to the judicial confirmation gaffe.
