proofreading? we don't need no stinking proofreading!

from the "bizzare duck case" in lynnwood, wa:

The man jumped into the driver's seat of the car as the woman walked out of the store with her duck. Not knowing what was going on, she tried to stop him from driving away and was knocked down by the open car door as it backed up. She dropped the duck.

A Petco employee saw what was happening and "ran to save Peepers from the front of the car" just as Quinlan drove forward, Stern wrote. The car ran over the woman, inflicting serious injuries including broken bones in her foot and ankle, he said.

first off, who worries more about a duck than a woman? that employee definitely has some messed up priorities. but we can worry about those later. for now, back to the the proofreading bit. notice the bit about "serious injuries" in that last paragraph? two paragraphs later, we see this:
The girlfriend and guard were not seriously hurt. Mr. Peepers was OK.
so, we have a few possibilities here:

1) having "serious injuries" is somehow different from being "seriously hurt."
2) this reporter is a really crappy writer, and nobody is proofreading his work.
3) this reporter is a really crappy writer, and his proofreader sucks.

i'm sure there are some other possible explanations, but i can't think of any at the moment.

h/t dave barry