Journalists are retarded
Came across some further evidence that, despite all their talk and "layers of editors," journalists are still retarded, and a j-school degree does not give you basic math or reading comprehension skills.
Money magazine came out with their annual "best places to live" list. The list is divided up into two sections: one is the top 90 small cities, and the other is the top 10 big cities. "Small cities" are towns with populations between 50,000 and 300,000, while "big cities" are any city with a population over 300,000. Now, it should be painfully obvious to anyone that the lists were intended to be separate. Not to this dumbass (or her editor.) She somehow came to the conclusion that the list ran 1-100, with the top 10 city list being placed at the rear, so the 10th best big city (New York City) was the 100th best city in the nation overall. Like I said, she's a dumbass. To make it all the better, here's how she opened her piece:
"Sorry, Omaha. Tough luck, Chicago. Too bad, Minneapolis and Kansas City and Denver. Yeah, you heard right. Lincoln has trumped you all. At least that’s what one poll says."
Right...how anyone could possibly think that Lincoln would be ahead of Omaha, Chicago, Minneapolis, K.C., and Denver is beyond me. See, those towns actually have something to DO in them. In Lincoln, you can go to bars, hit on college students...did I mention you can go to bars? Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad town, but you would have had to live there you entire life to honestly think that it is a better city over all than the afore mentioned ones.
Just further proof that all a journalism degree equips students with is an ability to string words together to form sentences.
(For the record, Omaha was 7th out of 10 on the big cities list. Quite respectable. And much better than Lincoln's 60th out of 90 placing on the small cities list.)
Money magazine came out with their annual "best places to live" list. The list is divided up into two sections: one is the top 90 small cities, and the other is the top 10 big cities. "Small cities" are towns with populations between 50,000 and 300,000, while "big cities" are any city with a population over 300,000. Now, it should be painfully obvious to anyone that the lists were intended to be separate. Not to this dumbass (or her editor.) She somehow came to the conclusion that the list ran 1-100, with the top 10 city list being placed at the rear, so the 10th best big city (New York City) was the 100th best city in the nation overall. Like I said, she's a dumbass. To make it all the better, here's how she opened her piece:
"Sorry, Omaha. Tough luck, Chicago. Too bad, Minneapolis and Kansas City and Denver. Yeah, you heard right. Lincoln has trumped you all. At least that’s what one poll says."
Right...how anyone could possibly think that Lincoln would be ahead of Omaha, Chicago, Minneapolis, K.C., and Denver is beyond me. See, those towns actually have something to DO in them. In Lincoln, you can go to bars, hit on college students...did I mention you can go to bars? Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad town, but you would have had to live there you entire life to honestly think that it is a better city over all than the afore mentioned ones.
Just further proof that all a journalism degree equips students with is an ability to string words together to form sentences.
(For the record, Omaha was 7th out of 10 on the big cities list. Quite respectable. And much better than Lincoln's 60th out of 90 placing on the small cities list.)
posted by Mike at 3:40 PM
<< Home