The venerable Wall Street Journal had a good laugh at the expense of the Pulitzer Prize-winning Toledo Blade in its March 19 roundup, noting the Blade headline:
Luckey teen wins Blade spelling bee
...and condescendingly commenting:
He's Luckey the Blade Can't Spell Any Better Than He Can
Problem is -- and they'd known this had they read the lead -- "Luckey" is the name of the kid's town in Ohio. Young Lucas Liner won the regional bee on the word "suasible" -- capable of being induced into some mental position.
Perhaps the WSJ writer had been "suased" into lazy editing?
Follow Joel Schwartzberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/joeljest
"Really? Looking at the page, I think it's obvious they considered it humor because they thought it was an ironic error."
Let me ask you, any of you, how many spelling bees are won on luck? Or even mostly on luck? Considering how bees are conducted, I'd say luck is about the LEAST relevant element of a victory. It takes brains and talent to win one of those things. Agreed? If not, well, you're wrong.
So, for the WSJ to have thought the Toledo paper committed an ironic misspelling (the defense Mr. Schwartzberg tried to float), they would have had to believe that the winner was in fact lucky to win, not talented, but lucky. But winning a spelling bee isn't like sinking a half-court shot at the buzzer to win. It takes talent, and lots of it, not luck, to win a spelling bee. And everyone knows that. It's just a fact.
So it should've been plainly obvious to Mr. Schwartzberg that the WSJ didn't view the headline as ironic, because no one with at least half a brain (aha! maybe therein lies the problem) would ever consider a spelling bee winner to be lucky. From Luckey, yes. Lucky, no.
So now that that failed defense has been laid to waste, try another one, Mr. S.
Just admit you didn't get the joke and move on.
It's a type of puzzle-solving for readers who enjoy that sort of thing.
To reiterate, what Taranto OFTEN DOES is actually celebrate the good fortune of headline writers who have copy come through their queues that includes things like a "teen" from "Luckey" who wins a "spelling bee." That's the sort of stuff headline writers eat up -- and Taranto acknowledges in his playful way.
Peace.
WHG
PS. You know, don't you, that Taranto ALWAYS refers to the HuffPo as the Puffington Host? No, that's not proof he doesn't know how to spell a simple proper name.
It would be best if you just admitted you made a mistake. Don't prolong it; a humble admission of error is a sign of strength. Trying to save face is mere weakness.
Those of us who read Mr. Taranto every weekday immediately knew he had not made a mistake; he was pretending to be a literalist in order to get a laugh (and he actually delights in the luck some editors have in writing fun headlines). Obviously, he does not always get a laugh; he is, in fact, very much like you --- human. You clearly have not read Taranto before, and this explains your complete misunderstanding, not only of this one instance, but his column as a whole. These are daily habits, so to speak, to which Taranto is very much committed and his readers very much enjoy. And his critical thinking skills are second-to-none (though one may still find him disagreeable).
Taranto also ALWAYS refers to the HuffPo as the Puffington Host. I am sure some of your smartest readers will soon descry that he is an obvious dolt incapable of spelling a simple proper name.
But you know what Taranto also does? He admits his errors rather frequently, and he does so quickly.
Peace,
WHG
I honestly can't imagine anyone reading those two sentences and assuming he wasn't ridiculing a mistake.
So my only mistake would be in characterizing Taranto's writing here as in error, when in reality it may have just been sloppily unclear, with malicious consequences.
Considering the ease with which he and many of you can defend it in retrospect with added context and projected foreknowledge of obscure Ohio towns, we'll just never know what was really in his head.
But let's move on. I'll tip my hat to Taranto's humor -- this controversy aside, I think he's funny. If he had looked me up a little more, he would have seen I'm a nationally-published humorist as well.
Mork out.
Let's imagine that the person finding humor in this is someone other than Taranto. Let's say Taranto comes up to me and says, "Look at these idiots at The Blade. Look how they spelled 'lucky' in the headline. He's lucky the Blade can't spell any better than he can."
Would you not find humor in pointing out to that individual that in this instance, Luckey was the name of the town the winner of the spelling bee was from?
Taranto is placing himself in the role of this dim-witted person. He even spells 'lucky' as 'luckey' in his quip to help point out the joke. It's a pun, once removed. This isn't Chris Rock, or anything, just good for a quick chuckle... almost British in its humor.
This is going to open up whole new worlds of comedy for you, Mr. Schwartzberg.
In every other comment, Taranto makes himself out to be the smart-than-thou sly commenter. Why would he choose this instance to make himself seem straight-on dim-witted? It just makes no sense to me.
I think he wrote "luckey" as a way of making fun of what he thought was a dumb error. If he knew it wasn't an error, and just a clever pun by the Blade, it's his role as a satirist to also make that clear by tipping his hat, not ridiculing them.
http://bit.ly/c6H6DA
I understand this page is about poking fun at funny headlines. The problem is that -- unlike the intuitive elements of the other headlines -- no one knows "Luckey" is the name of the town, transforming this, at best, from a Leno-esque funny headline into just a cheap shot. No one would read this in the WSJ and think it was anything other than an embarrassing goof by the Toledo Blade. They might have well have written "look how stupid they are in Toledo!"
It's like poking fun at a kid who never eats peanut butter & jelly sandwiches as if he's a weirdo, knowing full well he's allergic to peanuts.
I love good humor, but I find it hard to believe that the point of:
"He's Luckey the Blade Can't Spell Any Better Than He Can"
Is:
"Isn't it funny how the way the Toledo Blade used the kid's obscure town in the headline makes it seem like they misspelled Luckey?"
So, either:
1) The WSJ misread the headline and decided to make fun of it before they checked it out, or...
2) They knew it was appropriate, but decided to have some fun at the Blade's expense.
So shall we go with Bonehead or Bully? Either way, I think it's the WSJ that couldn't figure out how to express this both fairly and "funnily."
Mork out.
While it's clear that you've now assumed the character that Mr. Tatanto is playing when he writes the commentary to the headlines, I'm not sure that all of those commenting below are going to grasp that. Please take pity on them and clarify.
1) the post preceding the "Luckey" group is stating that the shelves at GM have really killed two-thirds of the Cadillac dealers, and
2) that the one underneath concerns texting acronyms.
3) I'm sure we can all imagine what the "Roach spars with Krugman..." might have been.
The REAL absurdity here is that HP has this 'Fully Moderated'. Really?
Riddle me THAT, Batman!