Did the editors at Yahoo! Sports spurn the dictionary, choosing to use this incorrect word and spurring their readers to look elsewhere for literate sports news?
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.
When asked why they put quotation marks around a character’s name and why they thought “details are mum” made sense, the editors at yahoo.com are mum:
If the name of the movie Mr. Affleck will direct is “Batman,” then it deserves quotation marks. But it’s not. That’s the name of the character that will be central to a movie. Character names don’t get special treatment. You wouldn’t write about “Romeo” and “Juliet” would you? (Well, if you’re a Yahoo! editor you might, but the rest of the English-speaking world wouldn’t.) And why tell us that “details are mum”? Because aren’t details always silent? Perhaps it was the producer who is mum and details are missing or nonexistent.
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.”