This is why God made proofreaders (source):


  1. Given the history of drummers in rock and roll, is it even defamatory anymore to say that a drummer is “on drugs”? :)

  2. Yes.

  3. As a proofreader, I’m not sure I would have identified that as a mistake. An odd thing to say, perhaps, in the context of naming band members, ‘John Smith on bass, Jane Doe on vocals, Eric Lyday on drugs,’ but if I knew he was a drummer, I wouldn’t necessarily question it. I mean, aren’t ALL drummers…? that is, don’t drummers have a reputation for being a bit spacey one way or another?

  4. Simply. Poor Journalism. Biased of course by a former drummer.

  5. It’s defamatory because it’s presumptive, and if you don’t have proof that the drummer is on drugs, you could be accused of libel and/or slander.

    And this goes for Stella’s comment (below) as well. You can kid (and kenneth makes that very clear by the avatar) but you have to be careful what you publish. In my current company, someone once made a joke of our old slogan…and saved it. Someone else then grabbed that file (which they thought was the right one), sent it to the ad agency, and instead of “The Way to Go”, out came “The Way to Go…Broke”. Obviously, there was a big difference, and since no one caught it in the proofing process, the guy who started the whole thing had to fall on his sword.

  6. Although intended as a joke I think the history actually makes it a more unfortunate mistake. Because saying a rock musician is “on drugs” is pretty believable.

Leave a Comment