The Joy of The Freudian Typo
March 17, 2005 7:32 PM   Subscribe

Eventually, someone will notice this and fix it, so I will record here that the link is to a news story on the NPR site about the nomination of Kevin Martin the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission. The headline is "FCC Nominee Favors Strong Anti-Decency Fines." Bless him, a man after me own heart. Screen-capture here.
posted by mmahaffie at 7:35 PM on March 17, 2005

I still don't understand how a man can both be in favor of deregulation and stronger government oversight.
posted by Arch Stanton at 7:40 PM on March 17, 2005

but see the whole phrase is fraught with ambiguity to begin with...
even phrased as it's presumably supposed to be "fcc nominee favors strong anti-indecency fines" it leaves open the interpretation that just as "long distance charges" apply to those who call long distance so too do anti-indecency fines get levied against those that engage in anti-indecent acts.
posted by juv3nal at 7:44 PM on March 17, 2005

I don't understand a lot of things; i.e.:

Freudian? What's wrong with the headline?
Fix it? The story you linked to has the headline you wrote, but your screen-capture isn't working.
Again, I've read and re-read the headline, and don't see the joke. Enlightenment?
posted by yhbc at 7:44 PM on March 17, 2005

Decent fines for indecency.
Indecent fines for decency.
posted by caddis at 7:47 PM on March 17, 2005

Well. Poop. The screen capture was an attempt to avoid a self-link. I stuck a screen capture on my blog entry on this.
posted by mmahaffie at 7:48 PM on March 17, 2005

posted by undule at 8:03 PM on March 17, 2005

Again, I've read and re-read the headline, and don't see the joke. Enlightenment?

He's not really a pigfucker. He's never even been on a farm.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:08 PM on March 17, 2005

Anti-decency... i.e. indecency... i.e. dirty words and skin. New guy favors stronger indecency fines.

Where is the typo?
posted by sdrawkcab at 8:08 PM on March 17, 2005

I am confused...there seems to be nothing wrong here. Isn't this just another way to say "strong indecency fines" which does seem to be the intention....doesn't it?

On preview: what sdrawkcab said...
posted by tdstone at 8:11 PM on March 17, 2005

no speak much make post is dumb, hee.
posted by quonsar at 8:12 PM on March 17, 2005

sdrawkcab, anti is not the same as in, prefix-wise, so your first ie is wrong.

Anti-indecency fines are supposed to stop indecency, right? So anti-decency fines stop decency. Get it? New guy favours stronger decency fines.

Not really funny, though, just a mistake.
posted by bonaldi at 8:14 PM on March 17, 2005

On a related subject, do you guys favor young FCC chairmen? Because in that photo Kevin looks like he is fresh out of college. OTH, if he will fine the lousy family shows you export he is ok by my book. :)
posted by nkyad at 8:24 PM on March 17, 2005

of course... later in the article they explicitly use the phrase "Anti-indecency fines" which I suppose means one of the two is wrong?

That said, I actually prefer the phrase "anti-indecency" meaning the fines are anti-indecency not that they are levied against people engaging in anti-indecent acts.

But hey, that's just me.
posted by gambit at 8:43 PM on March 17, 2005

Well, since he wants to extend this to cable and satellite, I just need to get a little something off my chest before he decides the FCC can censor the internets, too:

1) ya need some wood?
2) internets.
3) fuck, shit, motherfucker, cocksucker, douchebag, assfucker, pigfucker, cum dumpster, assbag, asshat, asshole, dick, bitch, cunt, damn, crap, BARBARA STREISAND!#!@#$!@$#

(oh, and dogshit taco)...
posted by twiggy at 8:43 PM on March 17, 2005

There's no way an "anti-decency" could promote decency.
posted by oaf at 8:45 PM on March 17, 2005

Er, an anti-decency fine.
posted by oaf at 8:45 PM on March 17, 2005

Sorry off topic, but you folks may be able to help me out with this...

Are anti-abortion protesters protesting abortion or are they protesting the people who are protesting abortion?

Did anyone notice the above-linked article was written by a man named David Folkenflik. FOLKENFLIK! What a name.
posted by evoo at 8:58 PM on March 17, 2005


I've been stumbling over what I like to call "Headless Headlines" (self-link to my dysfunctional blog), but this one is better...

It's so good, it's anti-decent!
posted by wendell at 9:05 PM on March 17, 2005

Cultural conservatives and fans of media deregulation praise the choice.

So does this mean that you are going to get the same shitty news on every shitty channel, but you won't have shit said in the shitty broadcasts?

Folkenflik? People's movies?
posted by hoskala at 9:11 PM on March 17, 2005

indict me, i'm indecent right now,
posted by moonbird at 9:19 PM on March 17, 2005

wendell, Thanks for those two examples on your site. Language can be fun, especially in the wrong mouths.
posted by mmahaffie at 4:55 AM on March 18, 2005

I can't believe someone said Barbara Streisand. I feel violated.
posted by catchmurray at 5:27 AM on March 18, 2005

God, did this guy just get promoted from Vice President of the College Conservatives of Hampden-Sydney College?
posted by Zurishaddai at 7:12 AM on March 18, 2005

Wendell - those are fun silly heds, but howzabout a little ALIGN attribute for those screenshot images? I mean, especially since you're critiquing other people's style errors, it would be a little less distracting to the reader. Just a friendly tip.
posted by soyjoy at 7:44 AM on March 18, 2005

I retract my previous comment...hangs head in shame.

anti-decency fines= fines against or to deter decency
decency fines=fines for being decent
anti-indecency fines=fines against or to deter indecency
indecency fines=fines for being indecent

I think the confusion starts when legislation is made against indecency it makes it clearer to say "anti-indecency legislation" so that it is obvious that the legislation is against indecency and not for it.

However when you use the word "fine" the "anti-" portion is implied, so either "stronger anti-indecency fines" or "stronger indecency fines" makes sense. (to me anyway)

That being said I can't believe I have wasted time on a FPP on a typo.....
posted by tdstone at 8:37 AM on March 18, 2005

A wise man (well, OK, me) once said: "all truth is revealed through typographical error."

By the way, as of 12:56 p.m. EST, they've fixed the typo.
posted by mmahaffie at 10:00 AM on March 18, 2005

shorter explanation for "smaller government":

deregulation = government out of the boardroom
stronger oversight = government into the bedroom

nothing "conservative" in our current leadership
Grover Norquist is a terrorist.
posted by nofundy at 10:10 AM on March 18, 2005

At long last, metafilter, have you no indecency?

By the way, they fixed the headline since this FPP.
posted by Slagman at 10:52 AM on March 18, 2005

It's not a typo, but rather an ambiguous construction. Another example would be, "I saw the woman with my binoculars."
posted by NortonDC at 2:24 PM on March 18, 2005

" I still don't understand how a man can both be in favor of deregulation and stronger government oversight."

well said.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:55 PM on March 18, 2005

so is this thread about the typo or the hardened buttfuck of your first amendment?
posted by mr.marx at 4:20 PM on March 18, 2005

/points language hat beacon to the skies, waits patiently...
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 4:36 PM on March 18, 2005

« Older Why did you pull me over, Officer?   |   Superbug or symbol? Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments