 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are they smoking down there?
First of all, let's start by saying that if there is a misprint or typo in THIS article, it shouldn't detract from the point. After all, nobody PAYS for what is written here, and there is no one -- repeat -- NO ONE -- to proofread it. There are probably minor dyslexic mistakes and other general typos, but no one ever complains, because they know that this is not the Los Angeles Times...
So what happens when it IS the Los Angeles Times? In the old days, prior to computers, you could trust what you read in the box scores. You couldn't always believe the columnists, as they have had a history of demonstrating a trojan leaning, ala Mal Florence, but the stats were pretty reliable, like the past performances in the Racing Form.
And LIKE the Racing Form figures, these black and white stats are what some people use to wager serious, hard-earned money. And in this day and age of massive information overload, it is common to grab the paper, take a quick glance at the headlines and the box scores, and then place some bets. People don't always have time to read the accompanying articles in-depth.
Okay, so now you're thinking that this whole article is a bunch of whining sour grapes, crying over lost bets. Not so. You should know better: WE have plenty of time to study all details, so we were not fooled by the mistakes. However, it doesn't mean that we still aren't thoroughly disappointed in the Times' lack of accuracy/effort.
Okay -- Now you want to know what the mistakes were, so you can laugh about how inconsequential they are. We're not going to give the exact details, because someone might produce a corrected, later edition that makes it look like it's OUR error. However, we'll give you the basics: First, they printed an incorrect score of an Angel victory, in the sub-headline. They had the Angels winning, but with a higher score that could influence over/under bettors.
Then a couple of days ago, the Baseball Results section listed Toronto losing to Tampa Bay, despite their 6-runs in the bottom of the 9th comeback victory.
Finally, in the Baseball Schedule, they listed the Dodgers as the visiting team, when they were actually playing at home (a huge factor in gambling).
We're sure that you think all this stuff is too minor to write an article about, especially since reading one more paragraph in any of the three instances clears up the error. But it's about 30 years of decline, and the fact that WE spend so much time and effort to avoid f-ups like these, that you would think the Times has the resources to do a little better.
And if we can't vent about some slackers, on our own website, then what's the point of having a website? Especially when we're talking about an entity that is commonly referred to by Bruin fans as The Trojan Times.
We really shouldn't expect any better from the dinosaur that is the Times. After all, when they assigned ex-trojan Lonnie White to cover all things UCLA for them, they were taking an intentional shot in the mouth at all Bruins readers, who had to endure article after article dripping with sarcasm, subtlely ripping UCLA between the lines, while pimping his beloved cardinal and gold every chance he got. What's the point of having proofreaders or editors when the authors took Ballroom Dancing instead of English? You'd need Shakespeare to turn those seemingly random collections of words into anything coherent or meaningful.
It's not just the Internet that's making this Paper obsolete.
---------------------
This article is written with all due respect given to BILL SHAIKIN, who we believe is still a Times Sportswriter, an all-around good guy, and an old schoolmate to boot. He didn't return our e-mail (a couple of years ago, when we were starting out), but he is still exempt from this article's hostility, due to his 7th grade friendliness).
|
|
|
