![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Only six more times...
Apr. 3rd, 2003 09:06 pmA fairly large assignment arrived in the inbox today. I slightly miscalculated the work regime for it, thinking that the deadline (the 10th) is still a long way away; it isn't. It is (or was) only seven days off. Finishing the work is not going to leave a lot of time for much other work, though I can probably squeeze in some smaller assignments along the way.
In any event, I started on the document around 2 pm, trying to get TRADOS to tell me something useful about the content. I finally figured out how to use the analysis feature, and it told me that there was a mere 2% of repetition to be encountered in the document. Engaging what I thought to be a useful translation memory database didn't help worth a whit.
Of course, having TRADOS find and use my previous translations of a repetitive text isn't the only reason to use the program; it also does an excellent job of keeping me from accidentally omitting a sentence every once in a while (I find annoyances like that sometimes when I review translations done on the basis of faxes or other hardcopy).
So far, the text is very clear and straightforward, which is very definitely a Good Thing™.
* * * During a chance few minutes watching CNN this afternoon, I caught the broadcast of a segment on Internet weblogs, or blogs (of which LiveJournal is an example, although we're generally considered a niche example). A few minutes of time on Google will demonstrate a veritable smorgasbord of blogs to suit any taste or political persuation. I've mentioned some such blogs in my LJ from time to time (for example, Bill Whittle's site and Steven Den Beste's blog).
Anyway, after giving a very abbreviated rundown on what's out there on the Iraq war (including blogs by soldiers, parents of soldiers, and one by a young Iraqi living in Baghdad, called Where is Raed?, which hasn't been updated since March 24), this talking head comes on the screen and starts to spout out words along the following lines (i.e., the following is my paraphrase:
Indeed, if you really believed the reporting from Iraq, you'd be a screaming lunatic by now. After all, according to the press, the coalition has "secured" Umm Qasr at least a dozen different times (probably true, by now), has found chemical weapons (not yet), has been fired on by Scuds (nope), and has encountered fierce (nonexistent) resistance from the enemy... and this is from a contingent of newsies not directly working for the Iraqi Information Ministry!
The explanation for all this folderol is understandible: the Almighty Scoop. The bottom line in broadcast journalism is ratings, so fact-checking can not possibly be a high priority. On the other hand, one can argue that a blogger like Glenn Reynolds can make quite a name for himself by providing high-quality insight into current affairs, and thus has more of an incentive to check facts than do "traditional" graduates of J-school.
Enough of that. It's getting late, and I have really poured it on, translation-wise, since starting the assignment. Six more reps and I'm finished with it. Six more...
Cheers...
In any event, I started on the document around 2 pm, trying to get TRADOS to tell me something useful about the content. I finally figured out how to use the analysis feature, and it told me that there was a mere 2% of repetition to be encountered in the document. Engaging what I thought to be a useful translation memory database didn't help worth a whit.
Of course, having TRADOS find and use my previous translations of a repetitive text isn't the only reason to use the program; it also does an excellent job of keeping me from accidentally omitting a sentence every once in a while (I find annoyances like that sometimes when I review translations done on the basis of faxes or other hardcopy).
So far, the text is very clear and straightforward, which is very definitely a Good Thing™.
Anyway, after giving a very abbreviated rundown on what's out there on the Iraq war (including blogs by soldiers, parents of soldiers, and one by a young Iraqi living in Baghdad, called Where is Raed?, which hasn't been updated since March 24), this talking head comes on the screen and starts to spout out words along the following lines (i.e., the following is my paraphrase:
The stuff out there on blogs is unedited and unfiltered, and that's the way a lot of people like it. But keep in mind that because it's not edited by professional journalists, a lot of it is probably worthless. Consider, after all, that once the first newspapers started being published in England in the 16th century, sightings of dragons started to originate further and further away from London. Why? Because the newspapers would check out the stories first!I find it interesting and instructive that this teleprompter-reading bozo had to go back to the 16th century to find a credible example of journalists checking their facts.
Indeed, if you really believed the reporting from Iraq, you'd be a screaming lunatic by now. After all, according to the press, the coalition has "secured" Umm Qasr at least a dozen different times (probably true, by now), has found chemical weapons (not yet), has been fired on by Scuds (nope), and has encountered fierce (nonexistent) resistance from the enemy... and this is from a contingent of newsies not directly working for the Iraqi Information Ministry!
The explanation for all this folderol is understandible: the Almighty Scoop. The bottom line in broadcast journalism is ratings, so fact-checking can not possibly be a high priority. On the other hand, one can argue that a blogger like Glenn Reynolds can make quite a name for himself by providing high-quality insight into current affairs, and thus has more of an incentive to check facts than do "traditional" graduates of J-school.
Enough of that. It's getting late, and I have really poured it on, translation-wise, since starting the assignment. Six more reps and I'm finished with it. Six more...
Cheers...
