# "The news in the newspaper IS always outdated?"



## herut

I'm aware of the countless "news" threads, but I didn't see this one addressed. "The news in the newspaper is always outdated" meaning all the news items in the newspaper-- I really have to use the singular form here? It sound very odd...

Thanks.


----------



## Alxmrphi

herut said:


> I'm aware of the countless "news" threads, but I didn't see this one addressed.



'Addressed' in what sense?
There's no question or basis for discussion in your post.

Please be clear


----------



## K.Z.

No. The plural would be correct in this case because "news" refers to the stories published in the newspaper. I think the sentence could be better constructed. 

-- The news in the newspaper are always outdated.
-- The stories in the newspaper are outdated.


----------



## Alxmrphi

K.Z. said:


> No. The plural would be correct in this case because "news" refers to the stories published in the newspaper. I think the sentence could be better constructed.
> 
> -- The news in the newspaper are always outdated. ('for *me*')
> -- The stories in the newspaper are outdated.



(Notice it isn't a  )
I would, despite understanding perfectly well all logical assumptions about subject-verb concord, would never ever ever say this.
I'd put together 'news' and 'were' only in a construction where I was referring to the news organisation, as a semantically plural unit (like _the government are._..)  - this wouldn't be about the plurality of word 'news' in this case.


----------



## herut

(Sorry, Alx, I hit post accidentally).

Thanks, K.Z.

What about this one, just to be sure:

"News are sacred to me, I don't want them to be manipulated."

Plural, too, right? Let's see what Alx has to say about this one, heh.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> What about this one, just to be sure:
> 
> "News are sacred to me, I don't want them to be manipulated."
> 
> Plural, too, right?



I don't understand what it means sorry, can you re-write it?
I think you'd need to define what news you're talking about (= use definite article).
But what type of news is sacred and could be manipulated?


----------



## Loob

I agree with Alx's post 4. "News" is uncountable and takes a singular verb.

There are several previous threads where this is discussed, herut - here are a couple of them:
"much news" or "many news"?
the news is/are??



herut said:


> "News are sacred to me, I don't want them to be manipulated."
> 
> Plural, too, right?


Wrong.

"News *is* sacred to me, I don't want *it* to be manipulated."


----------



## K.Z.

In formal English, it would be singular.


----------



## herut

"News stories are sacred to me, I don't want them to be manipulated." Is that better? And I disagree with you, Loob, that those threads address my question (see K.Z.'s first post).


----------



## K.Z.

Now it's plural because you're referring to the stories.


----------



## Loob

herut said:


> "News stories are sacred to me, I don't want them to be manipulated." Is that better?


That's OK. 


K.Z. said:


> In formal English, it would be singular.


Sorry, K.Z. - it's singular in both formal and informal English.


herut said:


> And I disagree with you, Loob, that those threads address my question (see K.Z.'s first post).


I'm afraid K.Z.'s first post is mistaken.


----------



## herut

Yes, I know it's plural, I was referring to the sentence being better... Anyway, thank you all for your input.


----------



## Kutchiloo

It's always singular


----------



## K.Z.

In casual or informal spoken English, people do use the plural form for news.

I believe plural would be correct in the first example because "stories" is implied. I guess it depends on how you read it...


----------



## Alxmrphi

K.Z. said:


> In casual or informal spoken English, people do use the plural form for news.



Where abouts?
They don't where I am from. (and I'm just curious!)


----------



## Loob

Yes, I'm interested too, K.Z.

I'm just wondering if you're thinking of bilingual communities, where the Spanish plural might tend to make people think the English word is also plural, especially given the 's' ending on 'news'?


----------



## K.Z.

All over. It's quite common for people to say something like "the news were terrible today."


----------



## Alxmrphi

K.Z. said:


> All over. It's quite common for people to say something like "the news were terrible today."



All over the _US_? Or '_all over_' the English speaking world?
It's just there have been 3 native BE speakers all confirming it's always singular and 2 of which (confirmed) who haven't heard it in the plural.

I used to be quite confident in assuring people on WR about "_what was normal around the world in English_", but I very quickly stopped after I got quite a few surprises that I never expected.


----------



## K.Z.

No, not necessarily bilingual communities. I've lived everywhere in the U.S. but the Midwest, and I've been a reporter and editor at various publications, including one weekly, two dailies and a real-time news service. And even in the newspaper business people use the plural without giving it much thought. That has been my experience...can't speak for others.


----------



## JulianStuart

K.Z. said:


> All over. It's quite common for people to say something like "the news were terrible today."


I've _been_ to _most_ of the English speaking countries of the world and lived in the US, UK and Canada all my life and have _never_ heard that even once.  I wonder whether the people in regions where that is used also refer to a singular "new"?


----------



## Spira

K.Z. (or should I say Marty Feldman?): in UK English at any rate, "news" is absolutely always a singular noun and is followed by a verb in the singular. Otherwise, that supposes that you can speak about "one new", as in "the new is great" , and the plural would be "the news", or even "half a dozen news". Which is not the case.


----------



## Cagey

I have never heard "news" used as a plural.  

I could imagine that "news" might be used as a plural if it were thought of as a shortened form of "news sources / newspapers".  However, as I said, I have never heard it done.


----------



## kitenok

> Otherwise, that supposes that you can speak about "one new", as in "the new is great"


 
Not any more than the existence of the plural "scissors" requires the existence of a singular "scissor" or "clothes" requires a singular "clothe."

But I can't recall ever hearing "news" with plural agreement. K.Z., can you find some examples in written sources or transcribed speech? You have a lot of people intrigued, I think. You say you've worked in the newspaper business -- could it be that this usage is something that  exists only in that business?


----------



## Spira

Scissors and clothes are a different subject entirely, it seems to me.
For they are an invariable plural followed by a verb in the plural, while news is a singular noun followed by a verb in the singular.


----------



## K.Z.

kitenok said:


> Not any more than the existence of the plural "scissors" requires the existence of a singular "scissor" or "clothes" requires a singular "clothe."
> 
> But I can't recall ever hearing "news" with plural agreement. K.Z., can you find some examples in written sources or transcribed speech? You have a lot of people intrigued, I think. You say you've worked in the newspaper business --* could it be that this usage is something that  exists only in that business?*



You know, that's a good question. I don't have any written sources because, as I pointed out earlier, I've heard it used in casual spoken English--socially and sometimes at work, never in an academic setting. Some people say the singular "sounds wrong" when corrected, and they go on to keep using the plural. I don't even think most people notice they're doing it. It's one of those things...


----------



## kitenok

> Scissors and clothes are a different subject entirely, it seems to me.
> For they are an invariable plural followed by a verb in the plural, while news is a singular noun followed by a verb in the singular.


 
But if I understand you correctly, you were arguing that, in a hypothetical case in which news _is_ plural (like scissors or clothes or chickens), it would necessarily have a singular form, and because it does not have a singular form, it cannot possibly be plural. My point was that the existence of a plural form (hypothetical or real) doesn't necessarily require the existence of a singular form, and (to bring it back to the thread topic), that one can't dismiss the possible existence of "the news are" on the grounds that there is no singular noun "new." I agree with you that _news_ as a plural noun sounds strange, but I think this is just a matter of convention.

The OED lists examples of "news" with plural agreement from 1417 to 1972, and labels it as "_archaic_ and _Indian English_." The 1972 example is from an Indian source. The last one before that is 1922.


----------



## panjandrum

The corpora include written sources and transcribed oral sources.

BNC has one relevant example of "news are".
Jane Kennedy... good *news* *ARE *my husband and I unusual because we no longer want to have sex?
[Liverpool Daily Post and Echo]

COCA has none.

So far, we have only K.Z.'s personal recollection.

BNC - British National Corpus
COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English


----------



## Spira

panjandrum said:


> The corpora include written sources and transcribed oral sources.
> 
> BNC has one relevant example of "news are".
> Jane Kennedy... good *news* *ARE *my husband and I unusual because we no longer want to have sex?
> [Liverpool Daily Post and Echo]
> 
> COCA has none.
> 
> So far, we have only K.Z.'s personal recollection.
> 
> BNC - British National Corpus
> COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English


 
Well, we don't have the complete quote, but isn't the ARE above the first person plural interrogative meaning "Are my husband and I unusual......?"
In which case it has nothing to do with the word NEWS.


----------



## Alxmrphi

> BNC has one relevant example of "news are".
> Jane Kennedy... good *news* *ARE *my husband and I unusual because we no longer want to have sex?
> [Liverpool Daily Post and Echo]


Panj,  can you give us the part just before that quote? It doesn't make grammatical sense without it and it could affect the meaning.

[Edit]: I see Spira was on my wavelength as well  The connected sentence is nonsensical, if there was a gap and a new sentence was starting (like Spira said) it'd make it grammatical so it's possible this is what it means (not referring to the plurality of _news_)


----------



## K.Z.

I'm shocked I'm the only human being in this forum, and presumably on Earth, who's either seen or heard "news" used in the plural form, however incorrectly. 

Following are a few examples:

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-05-14/food/fo-58431_1_small-potatoes
"The 'News' *Are* Good"

http://www.tradercurrencies.com/currency-trading/59411/news-are-good-but-euro-drops/
"News *Are* Good, But Euro Drops"

http://www.rapid-ideas.com/wordpress/thememanuals/camilo/no-news-are-bad-news/
"No News* are* Bad News"

http://w3.ipublicis.com/newswire/040210/no-news-are-good-news
"No news* are *good news!"

http://atlcasino.com/?p=56
"No Atlanta Casino News* are* good news?"

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/priest-accused-of-sexual-abuse-wont-fight-e/600756/
"*The News are* shocking! Why so called Rationalists, Human Right activists and Media, all Mafias are silent on this?..."

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1024231/ea-buys-vg
"*These news are* shocking to me..."

http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/community/Artificial Financial Market
This sentiment regarding the market is felt by the individual in such a  way that he is lead to the decision to buy or sell based on this  sentiment, furthermore, this sentiment is either good in the sense that  the individual feels that *the news are good* and offer good prospects of a  future increase in the value of his/her investment, or the sentiment is  bad, in which case the individual feels that *the news are bad*, and  thus, the value of his/her investment will decrease.

http://instaforex.com/forex-news.php
"*News are* displayed by GMT+00 (Please take into account summer time)"

http://fengshuiseminars.wordpress.com/
"The *news have* been telling us that we are in the depression."
"The *news are* late and out of date by the time we get to hear it."

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/stories/04/30/duo-remanded-over-gardens-attack-on-students/
"Sandman, how you know that they haven’t done that, sometimes *the news are late*."

http://bacchicstage.com/TrojanWomen.htm
"Andromache, I don’t know how to break* these* awful news to you."
"The *news are* terrible and I must tell them, Andromache. "

http://vivasancarlos.com/activities/san_carlos_in_pictures95.html
"The *news are *incredible."

http://www.refuge.pretendercentre.com/eng/fanfic/sara/the_truth_06.htm
"Yes, and the *news are* incredible..."


----------



## Loob

K.Z. said:


> I'm shocked I'm the only human being in this forum, and presumably on Earth, who's either seen or heard "news" used in the plural form, however incorrectly.


K.Z, it's the middle of the night here, so I haven't checked all your links. But of the several I have checked, one is about new potatoes, the others are not written by first-language speakers of English.

I'm sorry, but I think that "however incorrectly" are the operative words.


----------



## timpeac

If force of numbers is required - I'll add mine to the "never heard it" bunch.

I clicked on 3 of the links and they were all written by foreign speakers.

Edit - I clicked on a 4th, the forex one, and I thought this example was interesting - News are displayed by GMT+00 (Please take into account summer time)

Given that this was above changing forex news stories I wonder if "news", being effectively short for "items of news" or similar, might be used in those professions where they have need to say it often. Individual professions often create their own jargon useful to themselves but impenetrable to others. I really don't think it's entered general usage in any way though, not in my experience in any case.

I also notice one was from India, which is also interesting given that if I remember correctly the dictionary someone quoted above said that this usage was either archaic or Indian English.


----------



## K.Z.

^That's what I'm saying--not that it's right when they do it, but that they do it anyway.



K.Z. said:


> All over. It's quite common for people to say something like "the news were terrible today."


----------



## JulianStuart

I checked a few out also (I chuckled when the first referred to new potatoes as "the news"), and some of them use "a news" and "this news are" and "a sad news".  All in all, not very convincing that it is used by native speakers (I think Indian English was mentioned as one where it is sometimes used).  I'm with loob that the links don't support the current use of "news" as a plural.


----------



## Loob

K.Z. said:


> ^That's what I'm saying--not that it's right when they do it, but that they do it anyway.


Oh! I thought you were saying that you'd heard first-language English speakers use plural _news_. 

If you're saying you've heard second-language English speakers use it - incorrectly - then I think we've probably all had the same experience!


----------



## Loob

timpeac said:


> Edit - I clicked on a 4th, the forex one, and I thought this example was interesting - News are displayed by GMT+00 (Please take into account summer time)
> 
> Given that this was above changing forex news stories I wonder if "news", being effectively short for "items of news" or similar, might be used in those professions where they have need to say it often. Individual professions often create their own jargon useful to themselves but impenetrable to others. I really don't think it's entered general usage in any way though, not in my experience in any case.


 
I think the forex example is probably another straightforward "second-language" example. Here's what the company says about itself - click.


----------



## panjandrum

In case some may have forgotten - and K.Z. clearly has - the strong adverse reaction to "news are plural" was sparked off by post #2 in this thread.


K.Z. said:


> No. The plural would be correct in this case because "news" refers to the stories published in the newspaper. I think the sentence could be better constructed.
> 
> -- The news in the newspaper are always outdated.
> -- The stories in the newspaper are outdated.


----------



## Kutchiloo

I have never heard the news 'were' .... either, I'm sorry but I think that's wrong


----------



## K.Z.

panjandrum said:


> In case some may have forgotten - and K.Z. clearly has - the strong adverse reaction to "news are plural" was sparked off by post #2 in this thread.



No I haven't. I was making two different points, but clearly you're not understanding that and I'm done explaining it. Maybe I failed to be clear, IDK. I still think that if the speaker in that case means stories, the plural would work. In any case, I think it is possible to have interesting, healthy debates without the hostility and sarcasm. I frequent several forums on a variety of topics, and this is a hell of a welcome. Thanks.


----------



## kalamazoo

I would be surprised to hear someone using "news" as a plural.   I don't think I have ever heard it anywhere.  I have lived in quite a few different parts of the US.


----------



## timpeac

K.Z. said:


> I still think that if the speaker in that case means stories, the plural would work. In any case, I think it is possible to have interesting, healthy debates without the hostility and sarcasm.


But it's not possible to have them without any supporting evidence. So far every person in the thread, bar you, plus two dictionaries have disagreed that "news" can be plural - whether referring to stories or not. We've looked through the links and found them to be written by foreign speakers. Without supporting evidence I see no discussion here beyond "I think this" and "everyone else thinks that".

As I say above, I could find it believable that a certain profession may use English differently, but I think we have an obligation to foreign speakers to say so if we find comments such as 





K.Z. said:


> All over. It's quite common for people to say something like "the news were terrible today."


 to be untrue.


----------

