Two days ago, our local paper messed it up again.
I know right?
So, what did they mess up this time? In the article titled, “New Enid sign ordinance elicits number of questions,” the writer (I’ll let you look who it is this time rather than continue to point out the obvious) speaks at length about Whitney Box. He refers to Ms. Box in the following manner:
Changes to the sign ordinance would not affect current signs, only signs being newly permitted, said Whitney Box, assistant code administrator.
Pretty decent right? Wrong. Whitney Box is not the assistant code administrator. She is the assistant city planner.
Surely, we can forgive a simple error in title right? I mean, it might have just slipped his mind. But then, there was this article yesterday, “Commission tables parking ordinance.”
Whitney Box, assistant code administrator, went through the changes that would be made in city code concerning signs.
Ok. Once is a mistake. Twice is just plain f’ing up. I mean, how hard is it to know the person’s job title that you are continually quoting?
But that’s a whole other article. Let’s get back to the current screw up.
In the original article, the ENE quotes Ms. Box in the following way:
“The major changes in the ordinance are enforcement capabilities. The city didn’t have the authority to remove some signs before,” Box said.
Here, according to my sources, he twists her quote to nearly mean something else. You see, the city always had the authority to remove signs before. The problem came with their abilities to enforce other aspects of the ordinances. See the difference? In his quote, the city had no authority, when they actually did have that authority.