Amazing Arizona

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Sep 02, 2002 10:38 am

Page One story in the Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff) on Aug. 27:Have it your way
and get put away A Burger King assistant manager decided Sunday night that he had to "have it his way" when he brought a shotgun to work and blew a hole through the drive-through sign.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Sep 02, 2002 10:41 am

Police Log, Arizona Daily Sun, Aug. 26:Money was stolen from the belongings of a bridesmaid at a wedding Saturday ... Witnesses reported seeing a deaf Native American male outside the church during the ceremony. Nobody has been arrested.***The Sun caps "Native" as a sign of respect.***

Guest · **Posted:** Mon Sep 02, 2002 12:03 pm

If the writer up top really knew his Burger King jingle history -- and what writer shouldn't be excruciatingly steeped in useless junk-pop-culture minutae? -- the lead might well have been: "Hold the pickles, hold the french fries? Special orders apparently upset this guy."

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:55 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Page One story in the Arizona Daily Sun (Flagstaff) on Aug. 27:Have it your way
and get put away A Burger King assistant manager decided Sunday night that he had to "have it his way" when he brought a shotgun to work and blew a hole through the drive-through sign.<hr></blockquote>Regulars know that I prefer to keep our comments and criticisms among ourselves, but this one so aroused my curiosity that I e-mailed the Daily Sun editor about it, expecting to be told that it was a colossal error. Imagine my surprise at the editor's reply:"He's not a 'suspect' when his co-workers witness him shoot the sign. He may not be convicted, yet, but there's no doubt that he shot the sign. Readers know direct causation when they see it. There's no 'suspect' in this case -- there's a shooter. ... The hed and the lede captured perfectly the ironic juxtaposition of a slogan taken to it illogical extreme. The only objection I've received so far is yours."As far as I can tell, the editor is perfectly serious! I corrected his misconceptions via return e-mail, but I suspect that I'm not going to turn him around.I also wrote: "It does not surprise me that my objection is the only one you've heard. Sadly, readers are so accustomed to sloppy reporting, bad writing and careless editing that they hardly notice it anymore. It's no more excusable in the Arizona Daily Sun than it is in the New York Times or the Washington Post."I figure the editor--Randy Wilson ( rwilson@azdailysun.com )--won't respond except to tell me to piss off, which is understandable. If you have a minute, take a look at the story in question: http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=47584Perhaps you might be moved to send Mr. Wilson a comment or two.[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]

ramblerdan · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:14 am

I sent the following reply, which for the moment at least appears below the story on the paper's Web site: "Unless the reporter personally witnessed the incident (and even, perhaps, if he had), I think it best to leave convicting Mr. Begay to the courts.
"The statement in the lede that Begay 'brought a shotgun to work and blew a hole through the drive-through sign' is unattributed and presented as prima facie, even though no witness has testified under oath, let alone a court having rendered a verdict of guilty.
"Naturally, there are times when we can state a story as fact--no one would suggest that we say Jack Ruby allegedly shot Lee Harvey Oswald. But I don't think this case, where the events occurred away from the public eye, qualifies.
"Finally, the "have it his way" conceit trivializes an incident that at the very least led to felony charges, and could easily have resulted in a loss of life." You would think that all of this would be obvious.

Powderhorn · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 1:08 pm

Penultimate graf, same story:During the trip to jail, the arresting officer stated that Begay threatened to kill him several times.***I highly doubt that.

Guest · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 1:48 pm

I'm not taking sides here, but, in the interests of furthering academic discourse on this worthwhile subject, I'll posit this: Suppose you are a newspaper reporter and personally witness the commission of a crime. Suppose later that day, you are assigned to write a story about said crime. Would you, the eyewitness, use words like "allegedly" and "accused of" and "reportedly" to describe the incident to readers? Would you rely on a police report -- even if it doesn't fully gibe with what you saw -- to be the official basis for your story? What is a) the logical thing to do; b) the smart thing to do; and c) the ethically correct thing to do? And is there any circumstance in which the answer to all three questions would be the same?

ramblerdan · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 2:54 pm

OK, I'll bite.
First, if you witnessed the crime, you shouldn't write the story. You could do a first-person op-ed thumb-sucker, an "I was there" sidebar (to someone else's story, of course), or even perhaps be quoted with identification in the main report, but you shouldn't write it. That makes the question moot, I think.
That having been said, if you were a one-person Web news site (for example) and thus =had= to report on the incident, I'd say you could report what you saw, as your observation but not as fact: "From where I stood, it looked like the shots came from the book depository building."
You might, under certain circumstances, even be able to say that Mr. Smith fired his gun or carried a bag of money out of the bank.
What you obviously (well, sometimes things aren't as obvious as I think they should be) could not do is say that Mr. Smith committed a murder, assault, burglary, larceny, or anything else that constitutes a legal charge. After all, someone could admit to firing the fatal shot and still not be convicted of the crime.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:46 pm

Arizona Daily Sun editor Randy Wilson sent me this to post here:An act of workplace violence witnessed by co-workers who know the shooter doesn't result in a suspect, it results in a shooter. Go back
and read the numerous stories in other newspapers of similar acts that have deadly results. When co-workers are interviewed and quoted, they don't refer to the suspected shooter. They name him and call him what he is: a shooter. We don't work for the legal system, we work for readers,
and they appreciate journalists who know direct causation when they see it.
Read the accounts of the two teens talking about the San Diego man who abducted
them. He wasn't a suspected slain abductor, he was the slain abductor. Was the headline really supposed to be: "Teen: Suspected slain abductor raped me." In other words, not all "suspects" are created equal.
I'd counsel copyeditors to pay more attention to credibility with readers. The use of qualifiers such as "suspected" after three eyewitnesses have identified a shooter sends a message to readers that the newspaper is not willing to stand behind its reporting. Whether the courts find him "guilty" is a matter of jurisprudence, not journalism.***The flaws in Randy's argument are obvious, but I will leave it to others to point them out (lest I be accused of piling on), except to note that simple attribution takes care of reporting the accounts of witnesses. (Another lesson learned in Copy Editing 101 is that we do not call someone charged with, say, murder, a "suspected murderer," but that's another story.***

gullyj · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 8:43 pm

There are two reporting samples posted here from the Arizona Daily Sun and y'all have gone off on this tangent about a guy, a shotgun and a lousy sign. I take it then you are all satisfied with the "factual" report of the bridesmaid and the fellow outside on the street. Is racism so ingrained in your society that you simply shrug off the implications of this kind of report?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 9:23 pm

I also asked Randy about the "deaf Native American" item but I haven't heard back. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
There are two reporting samples posted here from the Arizona Daily Sun and y'all have gone off on this tangent about a guy, a shotgun and a lousy sign. I take it then you are all satisfied with the "factual" report of the bridesmaid and the fellow outside on the street. Is racism so ingrained in your society that you simply shrug off the implications of this kind of report?<hr></blockquote>[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: blanp ]

jmcg · **Posted:** Tue Sep 03, 2002 10:14 pm

Awright, then, the schmoe in Flagstaff
doesn't get it. Never will, either. I, too, corresponded with him. Brought
back unpleasant memories of my days as
a slot editor.I'm inclined to leave him alone from now
on, though. Sounds like he already might
have his ass in a sling over the Indians
thing. We'll have to see.A final thought: How many more papers
and editors out there would have said
or done the same sort of thing? Reading
the local press on a vacation to the
hinterlands is risky business.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:03 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
There are two reporting samples posted here from the Arizona Daily Sun and y'all have gone off on this tangent about a guy, a shotgun and a lousy sign. I take it then you are all satisfied with the "factual" report of the bridesmaid and the fellow outside on the street. Is racism so ingrained in your society that you simply shrug off the implications of this kind of report?<hr></blockquote>Yes, that must be it. Racism is so ingrained in our society that we simply shrug off the implications of this kind of report. :roll: Of course, I don't recall you saying anything about the report either, except to complain that we Americans aren't saying anything.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:23 am

From the Evansville (Ind.) Courier-Press:EVANSVILLE -- Evansville police shot a man early Saturday morning who allegedly tried to fire a loaded handgun at them during a foot chase near Judson Street and Taylor Avenue. 
***Note, please, that the aces in Evansville did not say the guy tried to fire a loaded handgun at them. It's really quite easy.***

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:00 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
From the Evansville (Ind.) Courier-Press:EVANSVILLE -- Evansville police shot a man early Saturday morning who allegedly tried to fire a loaded handgun at them during a foot chase near Judson Street and Taylor Avenue. 
***Note, please, that the aces in Evansville did not say the guy tried to fire a loaded handgun at them. It's really quite easy.***<hr></blockquote>
Yes. But how about: "EVANSVILLE -- Evansville police shot a man early Saturday morning[delete word] who allegedly[delete word] they say[insert two words] tried[???] to fire a loaded[delete word] handgun at them during a foot chase near Judson Street and Taylor Avenue."Not having read the story, I wonder whether anyone other than the police got off a shot. Did the police accuse the suspect of shooting and missing? Did they say his gun jammed (a reason to include "loaded" in the lede)? Did they accuse the suspect of pointing the gun but not firing? How do they say he "tried"?Still, it's nice that the Evansville paper doesn't consider itself prosecutor, judge and jury.

Ali · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:03 am

And really, being a former resident of Evansville, it's saying quite a bit that even the Courier-Press can get the wording partially correct.[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Ali ]

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:12 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Police Log, Arizona Daily Sun, Aug. 26:Money was stolen from the belongings of a bridesmaid at a wedding Saturday ... Witnesses reported seeing a deaf Native American male outside the church during the ceremony. Nobody has been arrested.***The Sun caps "Native" as a sign of respect.***<hr></blockquote>These wonderful witnesses must not have given the police the man's name -- this paper probably would have printed it.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:15 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:

Still, it's nice that the Evansville paper doesn't consider itself prosecutor, judge and jury.<hr></blockquote>... which was my sole point. You will not be surprised that the story does not come close to answering the usual questions:
http://www.myinky.com/ecp/local_news/article/0,1626,ECP_745_1361434,00.html

gullyj · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 11:26 am

I found it abhorrent. I didn't think I needed to s-p-e-l-l that out, eye-roller. Your flippant non-response response tells me pretty much everything I need to know about your view of the issue.[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: canuck ]

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:19 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
I found it abhorrent. I didn't think I needed to s-p-e-l-l that out, eye-roller. Your flippant non-response response tells me pretty much everything I need to know about your view of the issue.[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: canuck ]<hr></blockquote>I'm sure we all found it abhorrent. The problem is obvious and the fix is simple: delete the sentence. That's why the attention here was paid to the other item.

Rio · **Posted:** Wed Sep 04, 2002 10:56 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
I found it abhorrent. I didn't think I needed to s-p-e-l-l that out, eye-roller. Your flippant non-response response tells me pretty much everything I need to know about your view of the issue.<hr></blockquote>Yes, my response certainly should tell you all you need to know. Namely, that your scolding this group for not discussing an issue on which you yourself were silent was hypocritical. Further, putting forward others' lack of discussion as "proof" of American racism would be offensive, if it weren't so patently asinine.Hope this helps, eh? :D [Sorry, blamp. I'm done.]

gullyj · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:52 pm

I offered no proof and made no accusation. I asked a question and in reply came a slam and a distortion. Perhaps I have lifted a rock that some wish not to look under. Yes, "delete the sentence" is the obvious answer. But it wasn't and I'd like some thoughts on why the sentence published in the first place? Is that not worthy of discussion? If not, why make the post?
Reading that police blotter item made me feel like I'd been stuck by a needle in the eye. I found it horribly offensive, the work of not just one moron but an entire string of them. Or,I asked myself, was there something more than that: 'What is the motivation here?' Then I asked the rest of you.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 4:13 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
I'd like some thoughts on why the sentence published in the first place ....
<hr></blockquote>As noted above, I have invited the editor of the newspaper to address that question.

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:11 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
I offered no proof and made no accusation. I asked a question and in reply came a slam and a distortion. Perhaps I have lifted a rock that some wish not to look under. Yes, "delete the sentence" is the obvious answer. But it wasn't and I'd like some thoughts on why the sentence published in the first place? Is that not worthy of discussion? If not, why make the post?
Reading that police blotter item made me feel like I'd been stuck by a needle in the eye. I found it horribly offensive, the work of not just one moron but an entire string of them. Or,I asked myself, was there something more than that: 'What is the motivation here?' Then I asked the rest of you.<hr></blockquote>Cop reporters, especially inexperienced ones, tend to regurgitate what police give them. This includes jargon, offensive terms and information improper to use for legal reasons. Obviously, they should be edited well. Obviously, this item in a police log wasn't. That paper's editor has been invited to reply. If he does, perhaps we'll learn the "motivation." Otherwise, we're merely guessing and accusing.No motivation exists for much of the stupid stuff that gets into print. Cluelessness or haste often are to blame.A vaguely-related question: I've been told by Canadians, including a copy editor from Ontario, that "Canuck" is an offensive term used for French Canadians. My staff's dictionary refers to it as "sometimes disparaging." I was surprised when the major league hockey team out West took that name; perhaps it's analogous to the Washington Redskins' choice of name in football. Do some Canadians use "Canuck" in ironic fashion, as some black Americans use the "N-word"?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:13 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:
I've been told by Canadians, including a copy editor from Ontario, that "Canuck" is an offensive term used for French Canadians.
<hr></blockquote>As an American of French-Canadian descent, I can say that where I come from, "Canuck" is a fighting word.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:17 am

for the record, the jingle is "hold the pickles, hold the *lettuce*," which then rhymes with "upset us."
catchy

Pam · **Posted:** Fri Sep 06, 2002 9:34 am

I agree that the "Native American" reference was insulting. But so was the "deaf" reference.
Not to mention the accuracy issue -- how did anyone know he was deaf?

gullyj · **Posted:** Fri Sep 13, 2002 5:21 pm

I've never heard anyone use Canuck for someone solely from Quebec. The origin is murky but it supposedly came from Scottish settlers distorting a French pejorative and directed at the occupants of the Lower Canada colony. (The second syllable was likely replaced by that pleasant Scottish habit of clearing the throat while speaking.) I do not know the original French word but would welcome enligtenment from any etymology fans. Canuck has evolved to refer to all Canadians. I would imagine Yankee orignated as some form of insult, too, and it certainly can take on many meanings depending on how it is used. (You don't often, though, see the words "Canuck Go Home" written on a wall in some foreign land.)
In the mid-1800s, a Canadian editorial cartoonist created Johnny Canuck, a quivering character adopted by other cartoonists and always portrayed as giving in to the demands of Uncle Sam. In the past world war, the Canadian government re-invented Johnny Canuck as some kind of crusading superhero. Then there are the Vancouver Canucks, an alleged professional hockey team. All of us Canucks are grateful that Hoser never caught on.

SusanV · **Posted:** Fri Sep 13, 2002 6:01 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by canuck:
I've never heard anyone use Canuck for someone solely from Quebec. The origin is murky but it supposedly came from Scottish settlers distorting a French pejorative and directed at the occupants of the Lower Canada colony. (The second syllable was likely replaced by that pleasant Scottish habit of clearing the throat while speaking.) I do not know the original French word but would welcome enligtenment from any etymology fans. Canuck has evolved to refer to all Canadians. I would imagine Yankee orignated as some form of insult, too, and it certainly can take on many meanings depending on how it is used. (You don't often, though, see the words "Canuck Go Home" written on a wall in some foreign land.)
In the mid-1800s, a Canadian editorial cartoonist created Johnny Canuck, a quivering character adopted by other cartoonists and always portrayed as giving in to the demands of Uncle Sam. In the past world war, the Canadian government re-invented Johnny Canuck as some kind of crusading superhero. Then there are the Vancouver Canucks, an alleged professional hockey team. All of us Canucks are grateful that Hoser never caught on.<hr></blockquote>Finally, a use for my Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang!"Canuck n. [perh. var. of kanaka 'South Sea Islander' (Hawaiian), since both French-Canadians and such islanders were employed in the Pacific Northwest fur trade; later reanalyzed as Canadian + arbitrary suffix]"1. a French Canadian--sometimes used contemptuously. 1835 in DA: Jonathan distinguishes a Dutch or French Canadian, by the term Kanuk. ..."Based on the other citations, it evolved to Kanuck (1881) and later Canuck (1891).N.B. The entry actually has a < in front of Hawaiian, but I get an error message about no parens in HTML tags if I use it. Whatever THAT means.HTH.[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: SusanV ]

motelfromhell · **Joined:** Fri Apr 12, 2002 12:01 am **Posts:** 5

[QB]I do not know the original French word but would welcome enligtenment from any etymology fans.
My guess is "connard" (asshole). That's the French pejorative the word most closely resembles.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Sep 13, 2002 10:29 pm

Etymology of Canuck is obscure, according to my references. OED says it probably comes from first syllable of Canada with arbitrary suffix. Partridge's Dictionary of Slang says the suffix may come from an Algonquin ending (uc or uq), but Canuck may be patterned on Chinook. Onions' Dictionary of English Etymology suggests it is patterned after Polack.This got me thinking: What's the origin of the name Canada? OED doesn't say.

Rio · **Posted:** Fri Sep 13, 2002 11:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SusanV:
N.B. The entry actually has a < in front of Hawaiian, but I get an error message about no parens in HTML tags if I use it. Whatever THAT means.<hr></blockquote>This message board is set up to automatically translate simple HTML formatting in messages. HTML is the same coding used in Web pages. HTML uses the < and > signs, and when the message board saw the former without a space next to a word, the message board got all confused.At least, that's my theory. :)

gullyj · **Posted:** Sat Sep 14, 2002 1:21 pm

.This got me thinking: What's the origin of the name Canada? OED doesn't say.[/QB][/QUOTE]From The Canadian Encyclopedia: "Canada, a name derived from the Huron-Iroquois kanata, meaning a village or settlement. On 13 August 1535, as Jacques CARTIER was nearing ÃŽle d'Anticosti, 2 Indian youths he was bringing back from France informed him that the route to Canada ("chemin de Canada") lay to the south of the island. By Canada they meant the village of Stadacona, on the future site of QUÃ‰BEC CITY. Cartier used the word in that sense, but also referred to "the province of Canada," meaning the area subject to DONNACONA, chief at Stadacona. The name was soon applied to a much larger region..."
(I've heard that Canadian/South Pacific story before involving workers from both at logging camps in the Pacific Northwest but it seems a bit of a stretch. Anglos insulting the French (say it ain't so!) makes way more sense.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Sat Sep 14, 2002 9:39 pm

Thanks for the info on Canada.

Testy Copy Editors

Amazing Arizona

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links