Background: the Nass sometimes runs a feature called "PrinceWatch," a showcase of its least favorite recent 'Prince' articles with unpleasant commentary.
Above is the most recent installment of "PrinceWatch," edited for grammar, spelling and factual accuracy by Daily Princetonian Executive Editor for Copy Sara Hastings '09.
People in glass houses blah blah blah etc.
Posts
3 comments:
I mean yes, the type setting doesn't follow the Prince's strict rules (or admittedly those of many newspapers) and there are some typos that the writers and their editors should have caught, but ultimately this doesn't seem to address the real issue at hand. The Prince articles this "PrinceWatch" critiques were terrible, as were many others they could have chosen. The Nass on the other hand tends to publish meaningful pieces that are often very well written to boot. They don't pick on you because you have nice margins; they pick on you because your articles are bad.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Nass articles are "meaningful pieces". They are unnecessarily lengthy, and the style in which they are written can only be described as self-indulgent and masturbatory. Maybe when the Nass is done trying too hard to be like the New Yorker it will be worth reading. The Prince's articles, however, are not meant to be pieces of literature. They are meant to be to-the-point and informative. It's absurd that the Nass wants to hold the Prince to the same standard that it can't even maintain itself.
Post a Comment