Monday, December 11, 2006

Winners or Sinners??

Greetings everyone,

I'm back from vacation, so I'd like to start posting here. I'll raise issues, make comments and pass along information. But I do want to stress that any comments I do make are my own opinions, not official pronouncements for the desk. I hope you will join in and add your remarks and thoughts on various issues.

I'll begin by passing along an e-mail message I received from Timm Herdt. He in turn was passing along an e-mail he received from a reader.

It had not occurred to me before that it might be inaccurate to say that someone "won" a medal of valor. But after reading this e-mail, I thought the reader had a very good point.

I'd like to know what you all think about this reader's comments. Is it wrong to say someone "wins" a medal of valor, something they didn't compete for? Or do you think it's so much an accepted part of speech to say someone won a medal or commendation that it's acceptable use?

Please add your comments to this posting.



Subject: FW: Traffic Officer Valor Article

Patricia, FYI, I pass along a note from a reader. My view is that he has a decent point; "winners" carries the connotation that the recipients were actually competing, as in the Academy Awards or something. These medals acknowledge valor in the face of danger; no one actually sets out to"win" one. A small point, perhaps, but I think a worthy one. -- Timm

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 11/30/2006 7:59 PM
Subject: Traffic Officer Valor Article
Timm: This is not meant to be a slam on your journalist abilities. My comment about the article, and several before in the Star (Not necessarily yours...) has to do with the headline on page A8. Police officers do not "win" medals for valor. They certainly don't compete for the recognition. The choice of "Winners" might better have been awardees, recipients or even honorees. I'm sure there are several other choices, but not "Winners."
Cheers, Bill Herbert 642-4436 Ventura
------ End of Forwarded Message