“Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything,
but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.”
Why can't those retards give the guy the considertion to get the facts right. From the artice...Sapper Larcombe was in the Darwin based first combat regiment, and had just passed his third anniversary serving for the army.Sapper Larcombe was in the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. There is no such thing as the first combat regiment. If they can't even get that much right, how can they be trusted to report anything alse about it?
Hi Richard, how goes it?I didn't read that item, or see it.Just heard the shorts.I've seen the previews to Fungus' new show and given it the swerve. Way too far left any attention from me. I'm waiting for it to fall over.Truly, most journalists are rubbish. They haven't been taught to find out if what they say/have is correct. They just go on with it, if it sounds like words that's fine. The finer points of anything really do escape them.
Sorry Kae, I replied to the wrong post. This should have gone to the previous post ref SPR Larcombe. It is only another chapter in a long list of journalistic laziness when it comes to reporting the war. I shudder to think of how many times during the last rotation I read articles referring to the 6th Royal Australian Regiment instead of the 6th Battalian, The Royal Australian Regiment. I've made the point before that words have meanings. Some journalists just think that it all means the same thing. There is no such thing as a the first combat regiment. To start with, the name of a unit is a proper noun, and should be capitalised. They also missed a key adjective in the name of the unit. They are a combat engineer regiment, not a combat regiment. I would hasten to add, before I get mugged by angry sappers, that a combat engineer regiment is in fact a combat unit. Their primary role however, is as engineers. It is something I am sure SPR Larcombe was quite proud of. As for the 6 RAR thing, referring to the 6th Royal Australian Regiment would infer that we have at least five others, rather than having one regular infantry regiment with seven battalions. In short, it is just laziness that leads to such inaccuracy, and it means that their other reporting is to be considered dubious.
I do not know the histories you and Richard are discussing.However, one should have a bit of awareness of where one is standing, don't you think?The air should have been heavy and damp underground.
See, I wanted to be a reporter. I learned a lot about it several decades back. This kind of thing chaps my butt no END! They don't let baseball - or football or cooking or traffic - reporters get away with it, why in the WORLD would an editor not demand the same accuracy in a story about a Military Man? Unless it WAS done correctly and the copy editor excised it for space consideration...which is also bull if it takes away the MEANING OF THE WORDS, as Richard so rightly points out.
Post a Comment