now that is hilarious zip. i wish that was caught on video.

RIP Wall Arch

Wot Shawnee sed. And Grrr! Snarl! <wave big hooky claws>

I'm not real.

I'm just a pigmentation of your imagination.

From the Star Tribune

A typo turns the annual stamp into a calling card for a phone-sex service.

By PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune

The federal government says it has no choice but to reluctantly keep distributing to millions of waterfowl hunters a toll-free phone-sex-service number that features a breathy woman promising callers that they can "talk only to the girls who turn you on" for $1.99 per minute.

About 3.5 million federal "duck stamps," featuring artwork by a Plymouth artist, are affixed to a card that bears the misprinted number, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Wednesday.

All waterfowl hunters age 16 and older must buy and carry the current Migratory Bird Conservation and Hunting Stamp, commonly known as the duck stamp. Sales of the stamp, which is produced by the U.S. Postal Service for Fish and Wildlife, raise about $25 million each year to fund wetland habitat acquisition for the national Wildlife Refuge System. The agency annually sells about 120,000 federal duck stamps in Minnesota. The stamp isn't valid for routine postage.

Rachel Levin, a Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman, called the misprint, which connects callers to a phone-sex service, "an unfortunate typographical error" that her agency "really regrets." She adds that the agency will keep selling the $15 stamps with the naughty number because reprinting the card would cost too much.

The correct number, 1-800-STAMP24 (1-800-782-6724), is for people wishing to order additional duck stamps. Levin said two digits of the phone number are transposed on the card that holds the self-adhesive version of the stamp. That incorrect number, 1-800-872-6724, translates to 1-800-TRAMP24. Callers to "Intimate Connections" are warned that they must be 18 years or older before proceeding.

Levin doubted that the digits were purposely transposed. "As far as we know," she said, "it was just an error."

The stamps were produced by Ashton Potter Ltd. of Williamsville, N.Y. Messages left with Ashton Potter's executives were not returned.

"Thank you for calling...would you like a duck, or a fuck?"

So is it a typo or a misprint?

A typo would probably be the fault of the agency and a misprint would be the fault of the printer. If it's the fault of the printer, then it should be fixed for free. The agency is saying it will cost money to fix it, so that tells me it's the agency's fault. So why even mention the printer's name or use the word "misprint?" The story should clearly state that the agency gave out the wrong phone number and not even mention the printer or the word "print."

Why do I even care? It's the last sentence that tries to sound all ominous that the printer refused to comment. Like that makes them guilty or something.

We're conditioned to assume that a news story is a compact summary of the relevant material, which has been scoured over by an editor to remove superfluous verbage; therefore we assume that any sentences contained are actually pertinent to the story.

One of my least favorite tricks of the journalistic trade is to include a total non sequitur in the story, and let the assumed reason for including the sentence create a connection that doesn't exist, or can't be demonstrated directly.

This one is very popular: "couldn't be reached for comment" equals "GUILTY AS HELL."

SG, that is funny as hell. Thanks for the story. I am passing it around.

Flint:

Since the reader creates that connection only in his own head, how much of the responsibility for the unsupported conclusion does he bear?

The reader bears full responsibility.

However "The Media" (cue ominous music) has a standard vocabulary of assumption-producing statements, which they have "trained" the public to interpret in a certain way. It plays better on TV, where "tone" and facial expression can inform you "how" to hear a sentence.

From The Simpsons:
Careful readers like glatt are savvy enough to recognize these pitfalls, but, I assure you, they don't end up in new stories on accident.

So the Constant Reader assumes all responsibility for the conclusions drawn from an article, despite your assertion that these misleading statements are not put in the stories by accident.

There's still a disconnect, for me, in your statements.

Perhaps these "assumption producing statements" wind up in stories by habit.

Or so the Germans would have you believe.

Let me say this plainly: they put bullshit into news stories designed to INTENTIONALLY MISLEAD you.

That being said, it is YOUR FAULT if you fall for said bullshit.

There's no disconnect in that.

I tell a lie, you believe it and it's your fault?

Is there no... reciprocal responsibility on my part to *tell* the truth?