tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8004649849101357455.post6119688320430000361..comments2023-04-07T02:47:51.081-10:00Comments on Edit Hawai‘i: Bad quotesPathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04525687436544097069noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8004649849101357455.post-37160916690864875372007-11-02T11:48:00.000-10:002007-11-02T11:48:00.000-10:00Yeah, I thought the "cancer issues" part was rathe...Yeah, I thought the "cancer issues" part was rather appalling. People have commitment issues and insecurity issues -- not cancer issues. I'm sure Sheehan meant "complications from cancer"... or something.ceruleanjenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01658288288785000171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8004649849101357455.post-442937654331867372007-10-31T14:02:00.000-10:002007-10-31T14:02:00.000-10:00Eek, this is the kind of thing that gives newspape...Eek, this is the kind of thing that gives newspaper journalism a bad name.<BR/><BR/>In the first case, the writer could easily have edited Ishikawa's sentence a bit. Here's one possibility: "Trips on cruise ships often appeal to the elderly. This was the case in one of the deaths." The reader still has to make a leap from the first sentence to the second, but at least Ishikawa sounds less cloddish.<BR/><BR/>"Cancer issues"?! The writer should have paraphrased Sheehan, not quoted him. For example, the woman could have had a terminal illness instead of "cancer issues."<BR/><BR/>I see from reading the article that Ishikawa said this about the woman:<BR/><BR/>"We understand that the second person who died was battling cancer."<BR/><BR/>This phrasing is impersonal and cliched, but perfectly fine in this context. I much prefer it to what Sheehan said.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04525687436544097069noreply@blogger.com