"Univores," "Omnivores," "Paucivores" and "Inactives" are the new categories we can all find ourselves in. Which one depends on whether we believe Britney is a huge tabloid star or an area in northwestern France where Impressionist painters spent their summers.
'Better education does little to change this bleak picture.'
Nor, apparently, to enforce more punctilious journalism. It's pretty clear that the example given would find only the 'inactives' possibly thinking that 'Britney' might be an area in northwestern France (but even they probably saw some sort of travel journey on PBS or something--then again, they may have only heard the word spoken, not seen it written in its English version), nevermind who painted there. The 'paucivores' would definitely know that 'Britney' is a huge tabloid star, quite as would the 'Univores' and 'Omnivores'. Recent examples given at BT prove some of the Canadians have to rush things through without figuring out the fine points, although I've seen pitiful things in the New York Times as well. I wonder to what group Mr. Goddard thinks he belongs.
These new terms won't catch on, you can be sure of that. It's all 'features', whether the 'article' or the 'report', and I don't believe a word of it, especially the part about it 'causing a stir'.