Editor Shortage Showing at L.A. Times
James Oliphant of the L.A. Times reports:
One of Herman Cain’s accusers wants to be heard.
Her lawyer told the Washington Post on Tuesday that she is ready to tell her side of the ongoing saga involving allegations of sexual harassment while Cain was head of the National Restaurant Assn. in the late 1990s.
But, the lawyer, Joel Bennett, said the woman remains bound by the confidentiality agreement she signed as part of a settlement of her claim with the association.
But, the sentence, has, one, too many, commas.
Cain was asked on Fox whether he had breached the agreement by discussing the allegations publicly, thus freeing the woman to talk. He said he hadn’t because he had never identified the name of the one woman who’s complaint Cain says he recalls.
Who’s idea was it to say “who’s” instead of “whose”?
The whole thing is just horribly written, with misplaced modifiers galore, “specters” “hovering” about, and nouns separated from verbs by monstrously awkward phrases. Yeeesh.
But at least the editors remember some of their old tricks, if not their grammar. Look at the bottom picture on the left in this screenshot of tonight’s wretched article:
See? You can tell this whole thing is making Cain nervous because he is wiping his forehead!
A carefully selected picture beats a thousand awkwardly punctuated and poorly selected words.
Don’t stop dying on account of me, L.A. Times.
I sure hope I didn’t make any grammatical errors in this post that picks on someone else for their grammatical errors.
Always get nervous when I do that . . .
Patterico (f724ca) — 11/1/2011 @ 10:55 pmOh, hi! Yes, it’s me, Patterico, posting on my own blog.
Thank God for the guest bloggers or this place would be a ghost town.
Patterico (f724ca) — 11/1/2011 @ 10:56 pmHey, Patterico, I haven’t read about Cain “badmouthing” anyone…but I have seen two unidentified people who received settlements create the appearance of impropriety. I think Mr. Cain has more to lose than they do?
And this all took place at an oddly well placed time. Why, it’s like it is orchestrated or something! Naw.
Simon Jester (492257) — 11/1/2011 @ 11:02 pmSpeaking of which, Patterico, did you dress up for Hallowe’en?
Simon Jester (492257) — 11/1/2011 @ 11:03 pmThe center-left will stop at nothing to smear Herman Cain along with their far-left comrades.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/1/2011 @ 11:05 pmI thought Oliphant was nationally syndicated…Or is that a different Oliphant?
Xmas (9ba4bc) — 11/1/2011 @ 11:36 pmHaving been involved in two of these type of cases as an investigator it was my experience that the accused has little or no say in whether it goes forward. In the words of the Insurance representative “it’s our money and it’s our decision”. In both cases the accused were adamant and wanted their day in court, wanted to “countersue” and so forth. It was sickening to watch them “settle” for five figures in each case for what I considered ridiculous and weak cases of harassment. I’m a police detective and deal with criminal matters but I got a lesson in what the civil court environment is all about. It has nothing to do with truth or justice. It’s all about numbers and possibilities based on political correctness and “bean counting”. Doing what is right and/or proper doesn’t even enter into the equation; it’s a game based upon a possible chance or probability of a hostile jury siding with someone that lies in court and whether it’s worth it to go to trial and risk the money. I was a guy that held doors for women, and stood up when a lady entered the room but now I have to fight the urge for fear I’m creating a “hostile environment.” The sad thing is that eventually business owners will find excuses not to hire female employees as a matter of pragmatic fiscal reasons. What a shame.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Dave B (982f20) — 11/2/2011 @ 12:53 amThe difference between the LA Times and Patterico’s Pontifications is that the Times does it for a living. Patterico does it for his own enjoyment.
Ralph Gizzip (5ab3ea) — 11/2/2011 @ 3:24 amMary Joe Kopeckney wants to be heard…
Frank Drackman (da969f) — 11/2/2011 @ 3:57 amHad an LA times paperroute when I was 13…
Back in the 70’s before “Sportscenter”, the Internets, and if you wanted to know Tommy John’s ERA you better be paid up Mo-Fo…
Actually, you paid for the month of papers you’d already gotten, which didn’t really give a paperboy much leverage. In fact, if my route wasn’t on a military base I probably wouldnt have got paid at all…
I remember this one deadbeat, left owin me for 2 Months, some $12, alot of money in 1976.
Dude thought just cause he was in the Phillipines he was good…
Took some research, and gettin my Dad to let me use his AUTOVON line, and a cooperative Clark AFB operator, callin several squadrons till gettin the right one..
and some month later I got a letter with a Manila Postmark…
Frank
Frank Drackman (da969f) — 11/2/2011 @ 4:08 amThe Brothers Judd, had a series, ‘Does anybody edit _________, clearly that question isn’t even necessary with the Puppy Trainer.
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 5:00 amIf they want to be heard, I guess they would be willing to give the money back to the restaurant association. No, they want to keep it? Then please shut up. A deal is a deal.
Fred Beloit (4edfb1) — 11/2/2011 @ 5:07 am“But, the sentence, has, one, too many, commas” … Are you referencing the apostrophe (and did not mean a comma)? … or is that part of the inside joke?
john b (768cb6) — 11/2/2011 @ 6:32 amI’m the last person to quibble about someone else’s commas, but Oliphant does have a way with words;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-1120bidennov20,0,1545209.story
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:07 amhttp://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/31/news/la-pn-weinergate-20110531
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:09 amYou have forgotten the Times’ objective was the point of the story: bash conservatives.
AZ Bob (4f517e) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:20 amI once subscribed to this newspaper. For about 30 years. A year or so ago I cancelled. They continued to deliver the paper, unpaid, for the next 6 months until I told them to stop that, too.
What I wasn’t paying in money I was still paying in aggravation. What a pitiful excuse for a newspaper.
Kevin M (563f77) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:25 amAs you can see, from just two examples, Oliphant has long passed any sense of relevance.
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:28 amTrade you, the Times for the Herald, it’s a Hobson’s choice;
http://www.miamiherald.com/
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:56 amStay on message! Obama has been a disaster for America and he needs to be shown the door.
ColonelHaiku (fbf87d) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:58 amJust a quick reminder that Anita Dunn said: “But looking back [the Obama White House] would be in court for a hostile workplace… Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
Perhaps Herman Cain ran meetings by calling on people “boy girl boy girl”
MayBee (081489) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:59 amForget it, Patrick. It’s DemocratTown.
ColonelHaiku (fbf87d) — 11/2/2011 @ 8:08 amQuelle coincidence, I posted my own look at a biased LA Times article, but I repeat myself.
Mine examined an article depicting the state’s High Speed Rail Project as suffering from attacks of evil companies, instead of its increasingly bloated budget.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (449e54) — 11/2/2011 @ 8:12 amI love the feminazi racists pretending to be a conservative insisting Herman Cain the N word[their words not mine] Raped the women and when it’s revealed to be a lie they always fall back on the he paid them off smear.
DohBiden (d54602) — 11/2/2011 @ 8:20 amBrother Bradley, the whole thing resembles the Simpsons ‘Monorail’ sketch doesn’t it.
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 8:35 amYes, the L.A.TIMES. That’s the FISH WRAP that is hiding a video of OBAMA yucking it up with Palestinians.
gus (36e9a7) — 11/2/2011 @ 8:41 amI wouldn’t wipe my dogs azz with the LA.SLIMES.
‘It’s not dead, it’s just pining for the fjords’
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 8:57 amThis is bad.
Ever since the original POLITICO story, people have been confounding two different cases, which POLITICO linked, involving two different women who probably made two totally different claims, using different lawyers, whose original allegations probably did not in either case involve any kind of unwanted sexual attention from Herman Cain, and each one probably didn’t even know the other one existed until now.
Everyone, including Herman Cain, has not been clear about what was one case and what was the other and about which case they are talking about, and has not made clear that .
I do think Herman Cain only wants to talk about the case with the less serious allegations. That doesn’t mean the more srerious allegations are true. It means he doesn’t want to repeat them. It may be in fact that he has, at times, talked about both cases. In fact, it could be thatthe case he was talking about when he said the charges were false is the more serious one, and I suspect that’s not the case where the woman wants to go public but she (and reporters who have called her) now thinks he was talking about her.
That second one – the one now asking to be released from the confidentality agreement probably had no idea that there was any other cases till very recently. Her lawyer didn’t even have the agreement in his files. It had been shredded.
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/2/2011 @ 9:57 amA comment yesterday on the New York Times web page to Maureen Dowd’s column included this:
“I do not believe that the National Restaurant Association paid $35,000 to a woman who claimed Cain compared her height to that of his wife.”
I don’t either. That was the other woman, as the New York Times reported today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/politics/herman-cain-accuser-got-a-years-salary-in-severance-pay.html?hp
The precise nature of the encounters between Mr. Cain and the two women remained murky. He has said over the past two days that he joked with one of the women about her height. But he has not addressed what happened with the other woman — the one said to have received the $35,000 payment.
It has probably remained even more murky than it has to because every news outlet, including the New York Times is not using any names.
The one to whom he talked about here height is the less serious one.
we have to really try harder to tease them apart and disentangle them.
What shall we call them? ALICE and BERNICE? I don’t know if anyone wants to do BETTY and VERONICA. If we do, BETTY would be the oone wanting to go public. VERONICA would be the one with the more serious allegations.
Sammy Finkelman (3a0ae4) — 11/2/2011 @ 9:58 amAccusations are mostly “swirling” in the MSM.
Then again, when you think about it, that stands to reason, doesn’t it?
sherlock (63e9fe) — 11/2/2011 @ 10:01 amThis, Times, “writer” is using, what, my teacher, once, sarcastically, called the “insert comma if you inhaled, saying it,” “rule.”
My, FOURTH GRADE, teacher.
,
Mitch (341ca0) — 11/2/2011 @ 11:03 amI think the LA Times should open the door to guest proofreaders. I bet some Patterico.com readers would volunteer to proofread for errors, provided the paper would agree to give Patrick a column.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/2/2011 @ 11:05 amA xmas:
There is a Pat Oliphant who is a political cartoonist, whom I believe is nationally syndicated. I don’t have a clue who James is. Not a very good writer, of that I’m sure.
Andy (a35672) — 11/2/2011 @ 11:06 amRegardless of the grammar, anyone who would write this, clearly is not in touch with reality:
In ’87, Biden was the hustler. Now he’s the seasoned hand. He is a high priest of the Senate, a master of its mores and a beneficiary of its homage to seniority. He chairs the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee, and before that the Judiciary Committee; and has long been a regular on the Sunday talk shows.
narciso (0fc95f) — 11/2/2011 @ 11:17 amHow about this mistake today:
“Wait, James Franco is doing *what* with a Ouija board?”
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 11/2/2011 @ 7:46 pmHi, Anita.
Patterico (f724ca) — 11/3/2011 @ 7:16 amjohn b, “But, the lawyer, Joel Bennett, said” reads like a William Shatner imitation.
Icy (2cca78) — 11/3/2011 @ 7:27 amThat’s not a comma, that’s an apostrophe.
DJB (a9ba22) — 11/5/2011 @ 6:32 am“But, the sentence, has, one, too many, commas.” refers to the sentence above it. The apostrophe in “who’s” was not called a comma. The point is they used “who’s” instead of “whose”.
Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 11/5/2011 @ 6:41 am