Those wishing for a painful read should look no further than this gem.
It sort of match – if not surpass – that of the Universiti Tun Hussein Onn’s which appeared way back in August 2008.
Could it be that both were written by the same people/team?
The ever affable Citizen Nades took pains (no pun intended, if you so believe) with red markings the many mistakes, but closer reading seems to show that he has held back.
Perhaps he was worried that nobody would be able to read a wholly red-lined advertorial.
It is however poetic justice, really, to parents who have voiced, and voiced and continue voicing their hopes (nay, prayers) that the government review its U-turn on the English for Math and Science policy.
Apt (s)mug shot to adorn the same page as the advertorial, methinks.
Writers share their fair amount of goofups in spelling and/or grammatical errors, hence the reason why there is another layer of editing usually being done, especially for write-ups that appear in print.
Self editing is perhaps only for appropriate for blogs.
The KDSM advertorial is therefore a curious gaffe. Was it not edited before printing?
I’ve done my fair share of advertorials during my journalism days as these give quite decent extra cash and - while we are accorded fairly greater levels of flexibility in producing the articles - the same editorial standards still applies.
Like I said: A very curious gaffe.
You don’t suppose it’s intentional, do you?
It sort of match – if not surpass – that of the Universiti Tun Hussein Onn’s which appeared way back in August 2008.
Could it be that both were written by the same people/team?
The ever affable Citizen Nades took pains (no pun intended, if you so believe) with red markings the many mistakes, but closer reading seems to show that he has held back.
Perhaps he was worried that nobody would be able to read a wholly red-lined advertorial.
It is however poetic justice, really, to parents who have voiced, and voiced and continue voicing their hopes (nay, prayers) that the government review its U-turn on the English for Math and Science policy.
Apt (s)mug shot to adorn the same page as the advertorial, methinks.
Writers share their fair amount of goofups in spelling and/or grammatical errors, hence the reason why there is another layer of editing usually being done, especially for write-ups that appear in print.
Self editing is perhaps only for appropriate for blogs.
The KDSM advertorial is therefore a curious gaffe. Was it not edited before printing?
I’ve done my fair share of advertorials during my journalism days as these give quite decent extra cash and - while we are accorded fairly greater levels of flexibility in producing the articles - the same editorial standards still applies.
Like I said: A very curious gaffe.
You don’t suppose it’s intentional, do you?
No comments:
Post a Comment