Assorted Afflatuses

When I think of The New York Times, I think quality. Very rarely do I read anything that gives me any reason to complain.

Today, however, I found a piece so rife with problems, I wondered whether it skipped past the copy editor's desk and leapt straight onto the page. I speak of the article titled, "No Joke, Blub Change Is Challenge for U.S.," by one Claudia H. Deutsch, which graced the front page of today's Business section in the print edition of The Times.

As soon as the article begins, the problems emerge. The story starts, "The new energy bill signed this week makes it official. When 2012 hits, stores can no longer sell the cheap but inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are fixtures in most homes." It is as if the writer does not understand the difference between the future and present tenses. The year 2012 is in the future, so, logically, anything that will happen in that year — just over four years from now — should be expressed in the future tense. Thus, it should be, "When 2012 hits, stores will no longer be permitted to sell the..." instead.

The author continues with: "Even so, light bulb manufacturers say that worries about greenhouse gases and the high cost of energy had them moving away from conventional incandescents way before Congress weighed in."

When I read that sentence, I thought I had just suffered an aneurism. Did someone actually use "way before" in The New York Times? Fundamentally, I have no qualms with using "way" as a modifier. I use it regularly. But using such colloquial language in the Business section of an internationally distributed newspaper strikes me as, at the very least, strange. Why not say "long before" or "far before?" Neither one of those is overly ostentatious or formal, but both sound much less colloquial, come across as far more polished and convey much more authority.

The next sentence begins very awkwardly: "For quite some time, they note, they have been trying to soften the light emitted by compact fluorescent lights." The author could easily eliminate several words by simply saying, "They have long been trying to soften the light emitted by compact fluorescent lights," or something to that effect. It continues, "bring down the cost of light-emitting diodes — and yes, find ways to increase the efficiency of incandescents."

Proof that no person alive on this planet truly understands how hyphens work. She should have written, "bring down the cost of light-emitting diodes — and yes — find ways to increase the efficiency of incandescents."

Another punctuational error emerges in the next two paragraphs:

Frankly, I cannot believe The Times printed a story that contains a sentence ending in something other than a period, question mark or exclamation point. I suppose the writer could have kept both lines in one paragraph and in one sentence, which would eliminate the problem. But, either way, something went wrong.

The rest of the article moves along with some fluidity and grace. In fact, the author redeems herself somewhat by correctly using hyphens on two occasions. Though, I do have some minor quibbles about the writer's deleterious use of the passive voice, rather than the active voice in one or two places.

Hopefully someone in the quality-control department in New York reads this. The writer is, by no stretch of the imagination, terrible. I have read many a terrible story, and I know only too well what terrible is. But The New York Times is not just another newspaper. It is, as some would say, the newspaper of record. And, as such, I expect the articles to have, at the very least, correct punctuation.