Understood It would be instructive if other copies, within the syndicate, have the same typo or if sub-editers picked up on it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Looks like they trimmed it to fit the column. And the newspaper is responsible for what gets printed. That's why they employ proofers.
^^^ Newspapers are responsible for what they print & press syndicates are responsible for what they feed to newspapers & Mississippians cannot be said to be responsible for an article in a newspaper which we do not know where it is published or where the article originated. <>
^^^ Evidently, others assume it is a Mississippi newspaper : Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I) Do they? Serious question. A couple of decades ago a marked degradation in the cleanliness of my local newspaper's prose and captions and the like led me to complain in a letter to the editor, and two remarkable and unique things happened: 1) The letter was printed in full - nothing at all edited out of it. (That never happens) 2) I got a phone call from a retired editor of that newspaper (who had been given my number by someone at that paper, apparently), essentially thanking me for the effort and filling me in on the context of layoffs, reorganization, and bureaucratic decisions that lay behind the problem. Essentially, the paper had rid themselves of an entire layer of editing for the bulk of its published prose. That was in the days of spellcheck and the like, before modern grammar and content software - and already they were leaving things to Microsoft's expertise. No doubt the trend has continued at speed, unabated let alone reversed, in all newspapers. There is a good chance these days that newspaper copy - including ads etc - has been proofed and edited by no human being except the original writer. II) They are not as "responsible" as one might think. One of the several background motivations for my long ago letter was a court decision of the era, a local civil case, in which the paper involved had been held not liable for any consequences of switching the identification captions on a couple of photographs. The photographs were of two men, one a famous criminal of some horrible kind (iirc being led from court in handcuffs), the other a local politician in a close race at a rally. The photos were published prominently and near each other in the paper, a few days before the election. The politician lost by a very small number of votes, to the candidate favored and endorsed by the paper. The defense was - in layman's language - that the paper screwed up like that all the time, routinely, and that was just a mistake like dozens of others it had made. No malice or bad motive could be proven by business as usual, in other words. The judge, after reviewing the evidence, concurred. So the "responsibility" aspect is a bit counterintuitive - like shoveling one's entry of snow, which opens one up to being held responsible for a bad job (the snow is an act of God), editing can increase one's liability.
We also find biblical references and illusions in speeches and important literary works. Stephen Prothero, a professor in the Department of Religion at Boston University, quotes an example from a speech by Ronald Reagan in 1980 as a former governor before becoming a president of the United States. His closing words were: We can meet our destiny – and that destiny to build a land here that will be, for all mankind, a shining city on the hill.4 http://exfax.com/atheist/Bible101Presentation.pdf <>
YouTube comment : It makes sense. I mean wouldn't the Israelites would be black since the climate in which they live in were extremely hot, think about it they were slaves in Egypt for about 400 years or so and they wondered around the dessert to the promised land for 40 years. <>
People have lived in the area for thousands of years without "turning black". The Arabs, for example.