Have I mentioned my fondness for a certain NYT movie critic's lively scribbling? Today he reviews "10,000 B.C." He insists on referring to bellicose woolly mammoths as though they were Sesame Street characters, such as, "But the big, climactic fight, complete with an epic snuffleupagus rampage, is decent action-movie fun."
The review's photo caption online, by the way, says ,"Steven Strait as D’Leh being chased by a mammoth in '10,000 BC,' directed by Roland Emmerich."
In print, the caption reads: "The good old days, around 10,000 B.C., when men were men, and beasts were right behind."
Now that anyone can access reams of archived news online, the non-tactile internet realm feels more permanent than a physical paper copy which, if read at all, is chucked by the end of each day. Is this changing copy editors' view on writing headlines and captions for the print edition, or have they always been so tongue-in-cheek, and I never noticed before this? Yesterday in The Day - THE PAPER THAT JUST GAVE ME A JOB AND I'M STARTING NEXT MONTH AND I'M A REPORTER - there was a caption on the front page of the local section that included the phrase "wide stance." It was, somehow, referring to bowling. Another headline on the same page called Lyme-Old Lyme High School "LOL High School." I almost mentioned it when I met with the publisher (as in, "your copy staff is wonderful!"), but I didn't want to find myself in the position of explaining lolcats and lolruses to the man about to become one of my bosses. I think the the tale of the bukkit is compelling narrative, but then I also play house with three year olds.