So, John Edwards is simply John Kerry's running mate, right?
But, John Kerry is also John Edward's running mate.
Ergo, it might be helpful to point out which is the presidential candidate and which is the vice-presidential candidate.
This might seem to be overdoing it right now, as it assumes a reader who knows what "running mate" means but doesn't know who's who between Kerry and Edwards.
But considering that these news stories ("the rough drafts of history") will probably end up in databases that will be electronically accessible decades from now, it might be helpful for some future reader.
I can't imagine a story in which it wouldn't be abundantly clear which one is the presidential candidate. In a similar vein, I'm trying to wean my desk from the habit of imposing full first-reference style on every single so-called first reference, which in an edition of convention coverage gives you "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)" about two dozen times in very close proximity.
3 comments:
So, John Edwards is simply John Kerry's running mate, right?
But, John Kerry is also John Edward's running mate.
Ergo, it might be helpful to point out which is the presidential candidate and which is the vice-presidential candidate.
This might seem to be overdoing it right now, as it assumes a reader who knows what "running mate" means but doesn't know who's who between Kerry and Edwards.
But considering that these news stories ("the rough drafts of history") will probably end up in databases that will be electronically accessible decades from now, it might be helpful for some future reader.
That's my 2 cents.
I can't imagine a story in which it wouldn't be abundantly clear which one is the presidential candidate. In a similar vein, I'm trying to wean my desk from the habit of imposing full first-reference style on every single so-called first reference, which in an edition of convention coverage gives you "Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)" about two dozen times in very close proximity.
Why wouldn't "mate" work both ways?
Post a Comment