perfidy

Odd, but until now, it hadn't occurred to me that the phrase "editorial oversight" has two potential interpretations.

The first, of course, conveys the stern hand of a Lou Grant type character, ensuring that everything's square and nobody's left his zipper down.

The second, I'm reminded by an article in today's San Francisco Chronicle, is precisely what happens when too little attention is paid to the words that go into a published piece, or when a single word, such as "remaining", is omitted from the piece.

Investigation resumes today into fatal attack at S.F. zoo
Steve Rubenstein,Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Police this morning are investigating the sites at the San Francisco Zoo where a 350-pound tiger escaped from its enclosure and attacked three people Tuesday, killing one.

...

Doctors at San Francisco General Hospital said early today that the victims, whose identities have not yet been released, were recovering remarkably well. The men, Dr. Rochelle Dicker told KTVU, are "awake and alert" and in stable condition.

Yeah, except for the dead one, unless he's no longer considered a victim.

And further down, this bit of a description on the last time a tiger went apeshit at the SF Zoo:

On Dec. 22, 2006, the 350-pound Tatiana chewed the flesh off Lori Komejan's arm during a public feeding demonstration.

"And that, kids, is what it actually looks like when a tiger eats. Any questions?"

All small beer, I realize, but I've not experienced this much cognitive dissonance while reading an article in quite some time. Which might say more about me than it does about the Chronicle, but in this case, I think not.