Congress has been debating a law that would legalize the possession of firearms on college campuses for individuals with concealed weapons permits. [More]Aside from the obvious fact that the disjointed ramblings sound like those of an ignorant child, and that being made fun of because you're fat or redheaded means you can't be trusted with a gun, there's this little matter, which I called to the attention of the editors:
Click to enlargeNaturally, there has been no reply or clarification. It sounds like young Stewart is learning exactly the kind of journalistic accuracy and ethics they teach at Saginaw Valley State. That ought to serve him well if he follows this career path.
7 comments:
And it's "Congress have..." not Congress has. Right?
If I hadn't seen the caption and knew that this was a "university" newspaper, I'd have thought the author was a junior high student.
One thing I can say about this circumlocutious "journalist," is that his abuse of the non sequitur certainly doesn't help his delivery.
Doesn't that paper have editors?
What are they debating, which bus to take to the National Archives, to point at the Bill of Rights?
I'd use "has"--it's one congress.
Consider: "Past congresses have voted against similar measures..."
Either is acceptable, since Congress is made up of many people, though it'd be better to say, "the Congress have..."
About the only drawback in using the more traditional "have" is that people will think you live in the UK or parts Commonwealth.
Wow. I thought my campus paper (Auburn Plainsman) had some terrible writing.
When did 5th graders start going to college? When did they start getting paid $30 for each stream-of-(semi)consciousness rant they scribbled down after a few dozen bong-hits?
No better example of why Federal control of Education is such a problem - folks like "stewart" don't get "left behind."
DD
Post a Comment