I should've asked Mom for yesterday's newspaper, then I could've scanned it.
Nathan's got a scan of the article posted; I didn't imagine it. Guess they figured the rubes would never notice?
...In unrelated news, it was only a month or four ago that local newspaper pundits (for which read the paper's early-retired, surplussed and/or laid-off employees) were bewailing the decision to do away with copy editors/proofreaders. Gannett told 'em it was okay; in this modern computer age, they'd never be missed.
You betcha, George!
I'm all for removin' bloat, streamlining production and being all-around efficient, especially in these troubled economic times. But there is a bottom and I would suggest for a newspaper, it is reached when the lack of attention to detail starts to give the readership an impression of apathy.
As unlikely as it may sound coming from me, I agree with the Newspaper Guild on one thing: when Gannett reaches bottom, they can be counted on to start digging deeper. There must be a pony in there somewhere -- lookit the evidence!
* Looks like they're gonna drop that notion, or try to sneak it in later when we're not looking.