Um, don't think so. There are some typos. But there are always typos on accounta my crack team of copy editors has never shown up for a day of work. So...?
How then do we write and read stories to take this tendency into account ? I am regularly struck that journalists present information in a standardized format often lacking contextualization. A few years back CBC The National ran an exposé of sexual abuse by coaches in minor sports in Canada. If I recall correctly its analysis of legal proceedings filed involving such actions by coaches over a multi-year period showed some 300 cases. It then also noted, likely correctly, that experts expected that there were many more such incidents. Still, never did the report indicate how many coaches and other adults were involved across all those sports over that time period. The report seemed designed to have the audience conclude that the behaviour was and is rampant. Each case may be horrific and devastating to the individual and their family but, as a parent, it leaves me unable to determine what the real risk is to my child. The same seems to be the case with respect to the recent reporting on violence on public transit systems, primarily in Toronto. Each case has been extremely worrying but it was only after listening to the 6th or 7th report on the issue that a reporter noted there are over 2 million rides on the TTC every day.
Absolutely right. To put it in math terms, journalist routinely provide the numerator without the denominator. When the things they are discussing are scary or outrageous, as in your example, that information can easily looking big and unsettling. But it's impossible to really understand the individual risk with that denominator.
And the other missing contextualization is time. As you have pointed out previously when you asked for a year when things were better. I wonder how we will look at this current period of inflation in ten years, especially if we come to some kind of soft landing coming out of the pandemic economic crisis rather than a strong recession. Our political leaders often seem incapable of explaining situations to us with a time and risk perspective.
The published version as I see it has a number of duplicated, out of order paras, a bunch of what look like unfleshed out prompts, a bunch of non-sequiturs, ends with a single word "crime", and so on.
I get that you want to be defensive about jerks who nitpick but this legitimately looks like a publishing error - maybe only visible to certain folks (I don't know anything about substack but is there a way to publish different versions to free vs. paid? I'm free if it helps to troubleshoot.)
I see the same issues but only in the email version. It looks fine here on the website. It's like a draft version got sent out or something. And I saw the issues before knowing that anyone else saw them so it's not an example of what Dan wrote about!
Thanks, Max. I figured it out: I left the remains of an earlier draft at the bottom of the second draft I did and when I finished I didn't scroll down and see that it was still there. So that went out with the email. But I erased it online.
Oh good lord, I had another look and ... You're not crazy/dumb. I am. I wrote a first draft and came back to it, wrote a very different draft, finished it, put in the stuff at the end, and ... did not see the old draft below. I really hope that crack team of copyeditors shows up some day.
So: Thank you for letting me know. As I said, I really don't know what I don't know!
I'm in the business of making it impossible to defraud public benefits programs, and the biggest headwind I face is people who think anyone getting the money is just as good as the right person getting the money.
I like such stories. As a pathologist I know all too well that we find more when we are primed, finding stuff that’s not there. It like starting off to find mushrooms in the woods: Searching, stumbling, no success - then finally you find one - then the woods start to unravel. Aren’t there also stories about imitation suicides that are triggered by reports? Unlike fenestrations and suicides in RU right now.
Looks like you published a draft, my man.
Um, don't think so. There are some typos. But there are always typos on accounta my crack team of copy editors has never shown up for a day of work. So...?
How then do we write and read stories to take this tendency into account ? I am regularly struck that journalists present information in a standardized format often lacking contextualization. A few years back CBC The National ran an exposé of sexual abuse by coaches in minor sports in Canada. If I recall correctly its analysis of legal proceedings filed involving such actions by coaches over a multi-year period showed some 300 cases. It then also noted, likely correctly, that experts expected that there were many more such incidents. Still, never did the report indicate how many coaches and other adults were involved across all those sports over that time period. The report seemed designed to have the audience conclude that the behaviour was and is rampant. Each case may be horrific and devastating to the individual and their family but, as a parent, it leaves me unable to determine what the real risk is to my child. The same seems to be the case with respect to the recent reporting on violence on public transit systems, primarily in Toronto. Each case has been extremely worrying but it was only after listening to the 6th or 7th report on the issue that a reporter noted there are over 2 million rides on the TTC every day.
Absolutely right. To put it in math terms, journalist routinely provide the numerator without the denominator. When the things they are discussing are scary or outrageous, as in your example, that information can easily looking big and unsettling. But it's impossible to really understand the individual risk with that denominator.
And the other missing contextualization is time. As you have pointed out previously when you asked for a year when things were better. I wonder how we will look at this current period of inflation in ten years, especially if we come to some kind of soft landing coming out of the pandemic economic crisis rather than a strong recession. Our political leaders often seem incapable of explaining situations to us with a time and risk perspective.
No, not typos.
The published version as I see it has a number of duplicated, out of order paras, a bunch of what look like unfleshed out prompts, a bunch of non-sequiturs, ends with a single word "crime", and so on.
I get that you want to be defensive about jerks who nitpick but this legitimately looks like a publishing error - maybe only visible to certain folks (I don't know anything about substack but is there a way to publish different versions to free vs. paid? I'm free if it helps to troubleshoot.)
Oh wow. That's weird. I don't know. When I look online it's fine. Anyone else? Does this post read OK?
Try this: https://dgardner.substack.com/p/the-more-you-look And seriously, thank you for letting me know! I even appreciate tips about typos. I don't know what I don't know!
I see the same issues as Smith. The part about Seattle is there twice, and there are several incomplete sentences or phrases like "The classic illus".
I see the same issues but only in the email version. It looks fine here on the website. It's like a draft version got sent out or something. And I saw the issues before knowing that anyone else saw them so it's not an example of what Dan wrote about!
Thanks, Max. I figured it out: I left the remains of an earlier draft at the bottom of the second draft I did and when I finished I didn't scroll down and see that it was still there. So that went out with the email. But I erased it online.
Okay whew - was entertaining the thought that I might be crazy/dumb.
I mean, I'm still entertaining that thought, but less so because of this situation in particular.
Oh good lord, I had another look and ... You're not crazy/dumb. I am. I wrote a first draft and came back to it, wrote a very different draft, finished it, put in the stuff at the end, and ... did not see the old draft below. I really hope that crack team of copyeditors shows up some day.
So: Thank you for letting me know. As I said, I really don't know what I don't know!
It reads fine to me, but I’ll bet the more people look.........
I'm in the business of making it impossible to defraud public benefits programs, and the biggest headwind I face is people who think anyone getting the money is just as good as the right person getting the money.
just found more snow
I like such stories. As a pathologist I know all too well that we find more when we are primed, finding stuff that’s not there. It like starting off to find mushrooms in the woods: Searching, stumbling, no success - then finally you find one - then the woods start to unravel. Aren’t there also stories about imitation suicides that are triggered by reports? Unlike fenestrations and suicides in RU right now.
It’s reading fine to me, and I’m a sometime copy editor. Trust this is confirmation an earlier issue has been dealt with.
And btw, great article!