Is there a new meaning to the word twin? I ask because when I read this on Yahoo! Celebrity I thought Ms. Kravitz and Mr. Shadow were dressed alike:
I suppose if twin outfits means “looking nothing alike,” then the writer is right:
Writers at Yahoo! tend to have a lot of trouble dealing with numbers. And the news editor over at Yahoo! Style is no exception. Take this little nugget from a recent article:
That seems pretty easy to digest, arithmetically speaking. But the numbers get a little too much for her when she tries to do a little subtraction:
Did you notice that the writer also has trouble with English? American gals don’t shill out anything, since that’s not a real expression. They do, however, shell out money for shoes — at a rate of about $183,000 less than Singaporean women. But that’s not a real number, either. Average women in the Singaporean survey don’t spend $204,000 on shoes over their lifetime. That number is the maximum spent by women in the survey. So unless every woman in the survey spent $204,000, which I tend to doubt, the editor got that number wrong, too.
Yes, you read that right. According to the brain trust at Yahoo! Style, actress Jennifer Lawrence went braless and was concerned that her secret was leased:
This is so contrary to everything we’ve learned about Ms. Lawrence, who seems so open about the most intimate details of her existence. I would have thought that she doesn’t care that her “lingerie secret” was leaked. But what do I know? More than this writer.
It seems that almost every day some writer at Yahoo! Style has to prove that they know nothing about fashion. Whether it’s confusing a muff for a muffler or a garter for a garter belt, there’s no end to their ignorance. Today it’s this claim:
This is a sari:
and this is the dress that the duchess wore:
So, if that’s sari-like because it’s made of fabric, then the writer is correct.
Remember the last time Terribly Write illustrated the ignorance of style by Yahoo! Style writers? It was a case of the writer calling a muff a “muffler.”
Well, the writers are at it again with this caption about Rihanna and a shearling coat:
This is a shearling coat, and according to the American Heritage Dictionary, shearling is the ” tanned skin of a sheared sheep or lamb, with the short wool still attached.”
And this is what Rihanna was actually wearing:
I’m no expert on fur coats, but I’m pretty sure that’s not shearling. If I were writing the caption for that photograph, I’d avoid specifics and call it “a fur coat.”
Proving once again that knowledge of fashion, clothing, or accessories is not a requirement for employment at Yahoo! Style, this writer muffs a photo caption:
Was that a muffler (which is a long scarf) keeping the princess’s hands warm, as the writer alleges? No, it was a fur muff:
Someone at Yahoo! Style should turn in her keyboard and look for another line of work, preferably one not involving writing:
If you’re wondering whom this article is about, you’re not alone. It’s about Leslie Williams or Leslie Williamson. Or maybe someone else entirely. Getting the name of your subject right seems to me to be a basic principle of writing. Also, familiarity with basic grammar (like the ability to match a verb to its subject) would also seem to be a requirement of a journalist. Except at Yahoo!. (For those of you who are curious, the photographer is Leslie Williamson. At least the writer got it right once.)
If you’re looking for a writing gig and you know nothing about fashion, don’t know how to do a Google search, and don’t care about accuracy, Yahoo! Style might be the place for you. You’d be joining the ranks of writers who can’t tell Lyst from Lyft, and furthermore, don’t care:
The largest competitor of Uber is not Lyst, which is an e-commerce site. The writer got a little confused: Uber’s competitor is Lyft. But a simple Google query would have told her that.
When a site makes as many mistakes as Yahoo! Style does, it’s impossible to tell the difference between a hideous error and a deliberate attempt at humor or irony. Take this flag, for instance, which appeared on the site’s home page:
Maybe to someone living in China, it looks like an American flag. But to Americans, it looks like a horrible imitation with its 61 stars. All Americans know their flag has only 50 stars.
Did the person who chose that image know it was wrong? We’ll never know.
Hey, they both start with the letter A! So, what’s your problem with the Yahoo! Celebrity writer confusing attorneys with accountants? Are they really that different?