Pabulum

From the Fire That Caption Writer (And His Boss) Department

In the November 6 issue of Time, the caption to a picture of Amy Berg, documentary filmmaker and director of Deliver Us from Evil:

She's passionately committed to exposing the hypocrisies of the Catholic hierarchy as it fails to confront a sexual predator in a touching and truly frightening film

"Touching"? Really?

Someone noticed that and let it get through.

Research finds I am a roguishly charming, devastatingly handsome superhero.

Me: So, me, are you a roguishly charming, devastatingly handsome superhero?

Me: Why yes. Yes I am.

Needless to say, pretty much every use of the word "are" in this article about this study should be preceded by "say they."

So, this nonsense:

Republicans are happier than Democrats.

People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't.

The rich are happier than the poor.

Whites and Hispanics are happier than blacks.

Married people are happier than the unmarried.

Dog owners and cat owners rate the same.

Sunbelt residents are happier than everyone else.

Should, of course, be:

Republicans say they are happier than Democrats.

People who worship frequently say they are happier than those who don't.

The rich say they are happier than the poor.

Whites and Hispanics say they are happier than blacks.

Married people say they are happier than the unmarried.

Dog owners and cat owners rate the same.

Sunbelt residents say they are happier than everyone else.

(And yes, I know it should actually be "Republicans say they are happier than Democrats say they are." But there's only so much pasting I can do in a day, and it would ruin my quick fix posted above.)

Ever say you were happy when you actually weren't? I thought so. Happiness is, in fact, not an opinion, but unfortunately, there's only one person's word we can take on the subject. Truth be told, the overall findings above would be better stated as, "Republicans, people who worship frequently, the rich, whites and Hispanics, and married people are more likely to put on a happy face than are their opposites." And that makes sense, as each of those groups has quite a bit invested in the status quo. (Except the sunbelt residents; there I'm just going to assume their leathery skin has been dried and cured to an eerie smile-like rictus.)

It bears repeating.

I know I'm not the first (or the hundredth) person to say it, but as the title says, it bears repeating:

Hey, dumbass reporter standing out in the middle of a hurricane: Get in out of the rain. I know you think this is somehow hard news, becuase it actually affects actual people's actual lives, unlike, say, the up-to-the-minute status of Britney's marriage, but watching you stand out in the middle of a storm getting your ass blown all over Florida is not reporting to be respected. It isn't digging up a story I would not otherwise be aware of and bringing it to my attention. It's dumb observation. Sure, watching you get beat down by the forces of nature does give me some idea of the strength of the storm, but so would pointing a camera out a window at a scarecrow.

I know in some ways, deep in your heart of hearts, you must realize that you view this as some sort of penance, a way of making up for all the meaningless corporate crap you shill day in and day out. But it doesn't make up for it. It's not brave. It doesn't make you respectable and it doesn't make your balls any bigger or your credentials any more impressive. It just makes you look like an idiot, and unfortunately, looking like an idiot while providing nothing of worth that could not otherwise be provided by a non-sentient object (the aforementioned camera) pointing at an inanimate object (the also aforementioned scarecrow) does not make up for a 24-hour-7-day's cycle worth of crap.

I also know that the other justification is that this is some sort of initiation ritual. This is how you reporters "earn your stripes." It's something you all have to go through and you haven't really made it until you've spent three days as a blubbering human weather vane, or so the good-natured ribbing in the lunchroom says. But please, eat your ookie cookie and do your elephant walk in the private confines of a dark, dank basement smelling of stale beer and bad weed, like countless self-respecting fraternities since time immemorial. Don't broadcast your cliquish embarassment for all the world to see. Don't be out-discretioned by fratboys.

12 - 6 = Whore

Buried at the end of this little fluff piece about Jennifer Garner inadvertently letting spill on television the gender of her (and Ben Affleck's) upcoming child are these two sentences:

Garner and Affleck were married in June. Their baby is due around Christmas.

Now I know these kind of mundane details are usually tacked to the end of wire stories, but this just struck me as a little too oblique. Why "around Christmas"? Why weren't they married "earlier this year"? This formulation seemed to walk too fine a line of providing all the necessary information to do the math and draw the conclusions, while being coy about not spelling it all out with exact dates and whatnot. I mean, really, what does the timing of their wedding have to do with this story at all?

I know it's no secret that she was pregnant before they were married, which makes this all the odder. It's as if, even given the already public acknowledgement, propriety dictates we dare not speak the name of such unholy love while we reluctantly carry out our solemn duty of knitting her scarlet W.

The Commercial for the Movie's Wording Is Not So Good

The commercial for the new Joss Whedon flick, Serenity, starts off by letting us know, "The crew of Serenity's newest passenger..."

Wait. Wha...huh? If the newest passenger already has a crew, why does she need the Serenity? Oh, wait, I see. She is the newest passenger of the Serenity's crew. But, crews don't have passengers, do they? Ships do, don't they?

Okay. Whoever you are, I know you were trying to work three entities into this one thought here, and you were probably commanded to do so from on high, but I don't think this was the way to do it. Luckily for you, movie commercial voiceovers are just so much thrumming atmosphere as people watch the pretty pictures to see if the film being presented has enough explosions to merit a ten-dollar investment (as I'm sure you and The-One-on-High are well aware, having perpetuated it for however long you have), so probably only a handful of people in the country actually paid enough attention to even realize they couldn't make sense of what you were saying. But really, let's brainstorm this one.

How about, if you insist on the crew having a passenger, "Serenity's crew's newest passenger..."? But that's stilted and awkward, too. Or maybe, "The newest passenger of Serenity's crew..."? But that would just confuse the subject of whatever comes next (which, thanks to your mind-bending lead-in, I can't even recall). What about, "Serenity and her crew's newest passenger..."? But then, is it "[Serenity] and [her crew's newest passenger]" or "[Serenity and her crew]'s [newest passenger]"?

This is confusing. It's probably best just to go with, "Serenity's newest passenger." I'm sure the egos of the crew (sorry, crew's egos) can handle it. After all, it's not like the movie's called The Crew of Serenity.