As I have mentioned many times before I was an editor when I was in college. This was an unpaid position and it was just to get experience in the field with the idea being that eventually (I had hoped) would turn into a job doing precisely that after graduation. Getting to the point of even having this unpaid position was extremely competitive and one my job search began I found that the competition in the paid marketplace was predictably more so. It became apparent to me that the newspaper industry was run almost completely by nepotism and honestly, I should have seen that coming.
I never worked professionally as an editor but the ones that do get those jobs are presumably paid. Well, probably not so much anymore because the physical newspaper game is an all-but-dead industry. In that regard it may have actually been a good thing that I didn't get those jobs and instead moved on to other things since most of those positions have been eliminated already.
However, there was a time when there were thousands of lead editors churning out papers 7 days a week and well, let's just say that not all of them did a very good job at their jobs.
Unless this headline was meant to troll the forecasters this is just plain silly - not that I don't enjoy some humor. However if this was just a slip of the pen, so to speak, it is a bad one.
What's next? Is the Center for Disease Control going to start to control diseases? With the Environmental Protection Agency start looking out for the environment? You never can tell with this very vaguely named agencies so I am happy to see that the newspapers were keeping us all informed about what it is that they do.
If it's not closed by Thursday, just wait longer!
This could be particularly problematic if it happened in the same community where the bridge was being closed. It could be a divide by zero type situation.
Now if this was meant ironically, and if you read just the first sentence of the body of the article you can tell that it is, then the person who was in charge of this paper should know that something like that should definitely be in quotes. This is editing 101 guys.
The glory days for newspapers was probably any time before 1992 or so, that is when the decline began and the internet took over. There are plenty of mistakes like this that exist online, there is no doubt about that but since they can easily be "recalled" and updated it wasn't as big of a deal as when it would be noticed in the newspaper. There used to be entire sections of the larger newspapers where said newspaper would have to issue corrections and this, at times, was more amusing than the comic section of the papers.
When I think back at the relatively massive amount of people that were working on the newspaper that I was an editor at, which only had a weekly distribution of around 30,000 papers or so, I can't imagine how these papers, many of which were dailies and had a team of people that were actually being paid, I feel a bit angry that I was not offered a reasonable job back in the 90's when I was looking for one in journalism.
However, seeing as how that is a dead industry now and it slowly would have been dying under my watch, I suppose I should consider myself fortunate that it didn't work out for me.