It looks like the writer for Yahoo! Style was so impressed by the front of Megyn Kelly’s dress that she wrote about it twice:
If this was meant to honor Stevie Nicks and I were the singer, I’d say “no thanks, Yahoo! Style.”
I’m not impressed by a writer who doesn’t know how to hyphenate 66-year-old. Who doesn’t care about repeated words. And who is too lazy to look up the actual name of Ms. Nicks’ song. (It’s “Rhiannon.”) Apparently the writer thinks flapper and goth are worthy of capital letters, but honor isn’t worth a spell-check.
This is not an honor. It’s an insult to the subject and to the readers.
This mess on the Yahoo! front page is much like others, except there’s more of it:
Somebody thought that Nationals needs an apostrophe to show that it was the Nationals’ exit, but somebody thought it doesn’t. Somebody thought that repeating a word is OK; the rest of the world thinks it isn’t. And somebody thought that much like 2012 was the same as much like in 2012, but it isn’t.
I read Yahoo! Style so you don’t have to. And I report on just the worst of the many gaffes committed by Yahoo!’s writers. And these excerpts from a single article are some of the worst.
It starts with the misspelled America Ferrera and goes on to a couple of repeated words. The movie title gets no special treatment (which is usually italics or quotation marks at Yahoo!, there being no company standard). There’s an expression the writer misuses; it tripped her up. (Apparently she didn’t know it’s not the same as simply tripping.) What kind of nut was involved in this story? Beats me. It’s not OK not to capitalize OK; and it’s not OK to capitalize goddess:
I thought I was reading a story about Kim Kardashian, who was nearly trampled in a crowd. But (or nut?) it was a security guard who was nearly the victim. (The other victim is the reader of this piece, where the misplaced modifier produces unlikely results.) You’d think that a professional writing about style and fashion would know how to spell Rosie Huntington-Whiteley’s name, but you would be wrong:
During the fashion show, the front row was set to a soundtrack. I guess that’s better than being set on fire, but not as good as a show set to a soundtrack. Anyhoo, it hardly matters since the music included a song that the writer claims is “Stop Pressuring Me.” There is no song by that name. However there is a tune with the lyric “stop pressuring me” and it’s called “Scream.” Then there’s a teensy word missing, but that’s really not important in light of the other embarrassments:
I read this stuff so you don’t have to. You’re welcome.
Yahoo! just launched a new site called Yahoo! Style. I immediately thought that it must be better written than the rest of Yahoo!; after all, it was new! Wouldn’t the Internet giant invest in the quality of the writing of a new site? Wouldn’t Yahoo! finally hire competent editors to ensure the success of Style? I was hopeful as I jumped at the opportunity to read an article by Style’s editor in chef. Now there’s a person who must appreciate the need for quality writing.
The title promised info on dressing for extreme temperatures, so I’m thinking the heat of summer and the cold of the dead of winter:
By the time I’d finished the article, I’d learned about dressing for heat and for that other temperature extreme — rain. But I shouldn’t have been surprised that the writer (the editor in chief!) couldn’t figure out what he was supposed to be writing about. The more I read the more I realized he probably couldn’t figure out what language he was supposed to be writing in.
Here he takes a serious subject like global warming and reveals its true threat to humanity: It wrecks havoc on fashion:
Well, wrecking havoc sounds good to me; that would be destroying chaos. It’d be much worse if it were wreaking (or bringing about) havoc.
Then, I read this use of then instead of than:
I’m going to try to ignore the advice, which doesn’t exactly seem like it’s meant for the woman of the twenty-first century, and focus on the writing, which kinda sucks:
When I read this, I thought wearing cotton over silk sounded odd for dressing for hot weather:
But the writer (the editor in chief!) meant “prefer cotton over silk.” The rest of the stream-of-consciousness writing alleges that cottons allows [sic] the body to breath. Believe me, if your body ain’t breathing, wearing cotton isn’t going to help. The writer meant that cotton is preferable because cotton breaths (that is, it allows air to pass through it).
So, am I hopeful that Yahoo! Style will provide quality content? Not if it’s written by Yahoo! writers (and the editor in chief).