Learn to Google: now with more shoddy journalism!

The CNN Article “Mysterious Cleopatra has 21st-century defender” starts out fascinating, talking about a female Egyptian archaeologist who took exception to the negative portrayal of Cleopatra and is working to improve her image by conducting new research (there’s a possibility she will actually find Cleopatra’s tomb!) and writing a book telling the “real” story of Cleopatra, who, she says, “spoke nine languages, she was a philosopher, she was a poet, she was a politician, she was a goddess, and she was a warrior.”

However, the article doesn’t really get better after that line– it doesn’t offer any information on the specific information that Kathleen Martinez is trying to refute, or what her research has uncovered so far. Instead, it returns to the Is Cleopatra Ugly?!?! question! Because, you know, that’s the most important thing about her. It’s nothing new at all– there were some coins with her face that looked ugly, but she had to have been pretty, because nobody could have loved her if she was ugly.

But then it does get interesting, with some gender-neutral looksism:

The same researchers didn’t have a very flattering assessment of Marc Antony either, saying he had “bulging eyes, a large hooked nose and a thick neck.” No Richard Burton.

This does contradict Plutarch’s description of Marc Antony as having “a noble dignity of form; and a shapely beard, a broad forehead, and an aquiline nose [that] were thought to show the virile qualities peculiar to the portraits and statues of Hercules”?

I really just have to say… no. The description of Mark Antony as having “a large hooked nose” does not contradict the description of him having “an aquiline nose.” They are the same thing. That’s what “aquiline” means. “Curving like an eagle’s beak.” From wikipedia: An Aquiline nose (also called Roman nosehook nose or beak nose) is a human nose with a prominent bridge, giving it the appearance of being curved or slightly bent.

Is it sad that that’s the error that motivates me to blog this? Not the weirdly patronizing tone that the journalist takes towards the archaeologist; not the omission of Cleopatra’s story; not the really boring obsession with her looks; not even the poorly-written way the whole thing trails off into bizarre theories about the Egyptian pyramids and the Sphinx. No, the part that annoys me most is the fact that the journalist didn’t know what an “aquiline” nose looked like, and didn’t even bother to google it.

Seriously, dude. The rest of it would have taken time and thought to fix. “Aquiline” you could have figured out for yourself.


3 Responses to Learn to Google: now with more shoddy journalism!

  1. Jo says:

    It’s not surprising, really. I mean, the ‘ZOMG she wasn’t really that pretty!!!111eleventy!” stuff is so … done. We’re completely inured to it, due to prevalence.

    Which, come to think of it, should also be the case in “journalists getting tiny facts absolutely wrong”. Because, ya know, even editors miss stuff.

    It could be just a case of being tired of dealing with misogyny, which, goddess knows, one gets sick of dealing with Every. Damn. Day.

    But still: CNN: Learn To Vocab!

  2. slythwolf says:

    I was watching some stupid thing on the Discovery or History channel a couple weeks ago–were these channels ever actually good, or were they always sensationalizing things and misinforming people and I was just too young and stupid to know it? Anyway. Some thing about Cleopatra, and they were talking about how she wasn’t that pretty, and they showed a 3D image generated from her profiles on the various coins, and I was like, well, she’s not not pretty, so really, what the fuck. I mean, she doesn’t fit current Western beauty ideals, obviously. And we all know beauty ideals have been exactly the same everywhere since the dawn of human history, because the evolutionary psychologists have told us so.

    But, you know, this was a documentary purporting to be about debunking the idea that Cleopatra was just some slut who slept with powerful dudes to ride on their coattails and got away with it because she was hawt. For the story to be that obviously that’s not what happened because she wasn’t hawt, and not, say, because she was actually an intelligent, competent and successful person, I don’t even fucking know. I’m so tired of this shit.

  3. Jo says:

    Interesting thing: Copy Editing, etc., devalued, cut in Tribune papers.

    So, if CNN has made cuts in a similar vein, even if not to the extent that the Tribune company has, then the hooked nose = Aquiline mistake might not have been shoddy journalism, but a result of overworked journalists and understaffed newsrooms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: