The Bee’s content in the past week or so provided some readers with minor irritants, generated a suggestion or two, and helped renew a local version of the international millennium debate.
First, the items that irritate.
- The weekly On TV booklet last weekend generated calls when one page was left out and another duplicated due to a mistake in the printing plant. Those who requested help were provided with the missing page.
- Reader Gregory Shaffer suggested that every section of the newspaper should print a phone number where messages could be left regarding content.
- An unidentified reader was extremely irate at The Bee for running large photos of preparations for the Rolling Stones concert at Arco Arena. The paper should have run big photos of the vigil for the injured high school student instead, she said.
- One reader called to praise the artist who draws the “Wee Pals” comic strip, but also to suggest the name of the white dog, General Lee, was inappropriate and should be changed.
- Several readers responded by e-mail and phone to support last week’s reader request that The Bee bring back the weekly “How They Voted” box in the Sunday paper. One of the readers who liked that feature also suggested The Bee bring back the visits by editors to local community meetings to listen to and talk with readers.
- The large fat-reduction liposuction advertisements continued to collect complaints. Ugly, said the readers.
- Several pointed out smeared ink hurts the newspaper’s readability. Ironic, said one reader, that an ombudsman’s column about quality was partly unreadable due to ink smears. Yes, it was.
- Another noticed that the Ticket magazine cover photograph was printed backward and felt that might have been intentional. Not likely, as The Bee’s policy is to avoid reversing, or flopping, photos for any reason.
- A parent complained about an error in Ticket on the Monterey Bay Aquarium admission, which had his family expecting a free admission day. A correction ran on Saturday, but it was still an error that left the family disappointed in The Bee.
- One reader was “very disappointed” that Sports ran the results of the Pig Bowl “buried near the back” of the section, saying it was a major event for charity and deserved better play. Sports gave the event quite a bit of coverage before the game, but based on attendance, the editors felt the game coverage was appropriate.
- Two readers objected strongly to a description of the president’s female attorney as “schoolmarmish.” That’s sexist and inappropriate, they said.
- And one international-minded reader wrote that The Bee needs to do more coverage on the situation in the Sudan, which is awful.
Meanwhile, the millennium debate continued.
Readers Tom Silver of Orangevale and Ed Booth of Chico have been strong advocates of the use of the precise scientific meaning of millennium. Silver wrote this week to congratulate the paper for getting it right, at least one time.
“Cheers for Science Writer Edie Lau’s article, “Exploring Nature of Time,’ in the Bee of Jan. 25,” he wrote, “which recognizes Jan. 1, 2001, as the beginning of the next century/millennium, regardless of how many people want to celebrate it a year early.”
Considering that The Bee has used the term “millennium” 377 times in the past year, and rarely used or defined it that way, Silver and those who agree with him have not had much to cheer about.
Silver and others cite the United States Naval Observatory as the authority. The observatory says: “The end of the second millennium and the beginning of the third will be reached on January 1, 2001. This date is based on a now globally-recognized calendar established by the sixth-century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was compiling a table of dates of Easter.
“Rather than starting with the year zero, years in this calendar begin with the date January 1, 1 Anno Domini (AD). Consequently, the next millennium does not begin until January 1, 2001 AD.”
The Navy also provided this unattributed definition of millennium: “a period of 1,000 years.”
According to Gina Lubrano, readers’ representative at the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Navy explained its decision this way in a press release: “By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century will begin 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.”
Dictionaries don’t exactly agree, or at least provide much more leeway.
“The American Heritage Dictionary” defines millennium as:
- “A span of one thousand years;
- “A thousand-year period of holiness during which Christ is to rule on earth;
- “A hoped-for period of joy, serenity, prosperity and justice.”
“Webster’s New World College Dictionary” defines it like this:
- “Any period of 1,000 years;
- “A 1,000th anniversary or its commemoration;
- “The period of 1,000 years during which Christ will reign on Earth;
- “Any period of great happiness, peace, prosperity….”
The Bee, as reported before, will allow common word use reign as a practical matter. The dictionary supports that concept, but some readers feel strongly that is absolutely wrong.
This is not just a local debate. Here’s a quick look at how other newspapers are dealing with, or avoiding, the millennium issue:
At San Diego, Lubrano concluded without equivocation, “Some folks will celebrate a new millennium on Jan. 1, 2000, but they will be wrong.”
In Barcelona, Spain, reader representative Roger Jimenez reported: “Millennium is a lasting mess in La Vanguardia and other Spanish and European papers….It seems quite clear that the new millennium will start on 1st January, 2001. Another thing is that due to the fact of journalists’ fondness for double zero…most people will celebrate it at the end of this year. In fact, there will be two commemorations: the one by ordinary people and another one by astronomers and scientists.”
In St. Paul, Minn., the newspaper’s reader advocate, Nancy Conner, said, “We’ve decided here at the Pioneer Press to acknowledge that the technically correct definition and the popular celebration are at odds…Meanwhile, we’re trying to dodge the issue whenever possible because it’s somehow one of those things that won’t be solved.”
At the Hartford (Conn.) Courant, reader representative Elissa Papirno wrote: “Our stylebook says the millennium starts in 2001 but people have stopped paying attention to it, including the Copy Desk.”
The Associated Press, which sets the style for many newspapers, does not have an official position on use of the word. But a check with AP’s New York office found that most AP editors recognize the technical date is 2001, but AP stories either avoid the problem or refer to that as the “purist” approach.
So, that issue is finally settled.
