Media

The Times of India has issued an apology. That's good news. The bad news is that the apology has been buried in the 20th page of Sunday's edition. The info comes to me courtesy Utpal. Here's what the paper had to say: "An article in TimesLife ('Spa With a Difference', March 2) had an inadvertent mention that has upset our friends from the northeast. We clarify here that we have the utmost regard for them and their contribution to the country. We apologise for upsetting any feelings and wish to...

Those of us who have more than a soft corner for the Northeast have been crying wolf since the day we stepped into journalism. We have been crying ourselves hoarse over the stepmotherly attitude of the Centre towards the region. And we have also been mincing no words about what we think of how the news media itself has been handling the Northeast. Over the last few years the news media has shown some interest in the region. For whatever reason. Maybe people have matured. Maybe they have...

These are, we are told, exciting times for those in the media. Not an unsubstantiated, flippant contention one would say if one is abreast of all the investments that have been pouring in, the plethora of newspapers and magazines that are being launched every other day, or for that matter the television channels that are going on air till you stop losing count on your fingers. And if you are aware of all the technological breakthroughs that is driving communications today, you would stand firmly...

HR is hot. HR is in. HR is everything, these days. But most people do not know how to write it out. The thing is human resources is always written like this. It is a noun which always takes the plural when meaning people's skills and abilities, seen as something that an organisation can make use of. It is never human resource. However, when meaning a department in an organisation that deals with employing and training of people, both singular and plural can be used. Preferably the latter. But...

There are certain mistakes that are not typos or oversights. The usage of violent mob is one. [I had an earlier take on this about angry mobs.] A mob is always violent; there are no peaceful mobs. When the adjective that one is using to qualify a noun is embedded in the latter itself, the use of the adjective is redundant. You don't really talk of cold icecreams, do you? Usage of violent or angry mob is as stupid as that. I found this in a CNN-IBN story (3 get life term for anti-Sikh riots...

Here's a word that I believe belongs to the vocabulary of upstarts: publically. To start with, I shouldn't call it a word, for it is not one. It is a figment of imagination — usually, those of upstarts. The (correct) word, as we all know, is publicly. Meaning, by/of the public (e.g. publicly owned company), or in front of the public or in full glare of the public (He publicly apologised for his misdemeanour). I found this on NDTV (Suspended Pak CJ addresses rally; March 28, 2007): Pakistan's...

Ok. that's a bad pun. A bad joke, I admit. But if you go through the cruel jokes that subs inflict on us when it comes to phrasal verbs, you are sooner or later going to lose all your sense of humour, and sense of grammar as well. Just as well. It is now quite fashionable to use mull whenever you can. I am not going to mull the usage of this word, because it cannot be done. I mean, you just can't mull something as you cull dogs these days. The thing is mull as a verb in itself does not stand...

Some habits are a matter of concern. I mean habits of some subs. Maybe, many subs. It's about usage of concerned. Concern as a noun is primarily a feeling of worry about/for/over somebody/something. Concern as a verb would mean to involve or affect somebody. Primarily speaking, of course. Concerned as an adjective is concerned with the former. So when you use concerned before a noun, it would mean that the person (yeah, yeah, the noun I am talking about) is quite worried about something. It does...

One idiomatic expression which is rampantly, and erroneously, thought of as one word is in spite of. Inspite is NOT a word. As the OED will tell you, if you say that somebody did something in spite of a fact, you mean it is surprising that that fact did not prevent him/her from doing it. As straight as that. Some recent examples of this glaring mistake: The Economic Times (Ore export duty to help in resource conservation; March 11, 2007; PTI creed): State-owned iron export company NMDC has...

After the former editor of the Times of India, Sham Lal, died, I closely followed most stories about this "literary journalist", as he was hailed by many. So, when I read through this one about another former editor paying tribute to the columnist, I couldn't but help notice this bloomer (February 23, 2007): We spotted Sham Lal there, having a drink too. This was a rare sight. A lady I knew walked up to me and said she wanted to get introduced to him. Sham Lal spoke to her very courteously, but...