You’re probably right, Humble Servant. I’m mainly just giving ol’ Cece “the business” with my OP.
On the other hand, if I were writing as I speak, I would probably use “coupla.” Different strokes for different folks, I reckon.
Yeah, “coupla” is better. Only downside is that it looks like a typo for “cupola.” 
This one’s easier to explain. It must be a construction that’s parallel to what you’d say if a price was being quoted:
for free equals for zero dollars.
I agree it sounds lowbrow, but it’s definitely one the lesser offenses found in contemporary dialog.
“eat shit and die”
Am I missing the grammatical difficulty here? Seems simple. “Eat” second person imperative conjugation of “to eat.” “Shit” direct object of verb. “And” conjunction. “Die” second person imperative conjugation of “to die.”
So:
(I command you to) eat shit and die.
At least that’s how I’ve always interpreted this phrase. I can see other ways of reading it too, but that’s the only one that makes sense to me.
May I ask a question? (Just did, didn’t I?) 
When did Cecil use the phrase “Eat shit and die”? I searched but didn’t find it anywhere.
Aaack, mongrel_8! I can’t find it either. A suitable reward will be provided to the person who can find the column or, barring that, my mind.
::puts hand over ears to prevent further leakage of brain cells::
And pulykamell is also right about the obvious interpretation of “eat shit and die” and its grammatical construction. Consider, however, the following:
- [Warning]: “Eat shit and (you will) die.”
- [Fatalism]: “Eat(,) shit and die.”
- [How to hide evidence of drugs and gambling]: “Eat shit (contraband) and die (singular of dice).”
Sorry to bump, but I found Cecil’s “eat shit and die” statement. (Somebody linked to it in another thread.) See! I’m not nuts all the time!
Now I’m confused. How would you talk about the media, then? To me, it seems that “media has” is in the second person singular, which while not a perfect construct, is much better than “media have,” which would grant plural status to a singular noun. Or are you arguing that the media isn’t a single entity, but legion, as in your second point? As I see it, it’s no more plural than France or Coca Cola…
I realize the OP did not add links to columns to support his premise, but I still think this belongs in “Comments on Cecil’s Columns” for a couple reasons.
It is standard British usage to treat collectives as plural.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by elfkin477 *
**
“Media” is not a singular noun. “Medium” is. Nonetheless, common usage grants the usage of a singular verb, along with the plural verb. France and Coca Cola are singular. There is only one France, thank God.
To me it seems that using media as a plural (grammatically) when using the term to describe a singular entity is pedantic to the point that it confuses the reader. Then again, everyone understands when you do it with the word pants, so maybe it’s their own damn fault for not recognizing it as a plural noun.
As for couple, it seems normal and natural to use it without “of”, and I’m from Boston.
No, “media” is most certainly plural. Television is one medium. Newspapers are another medium. The Internet is another medium. There are plenty of others, too, from town criers to door-to-door campaigners and proselytizers. Put them together, and you have several different media.
On the other hand, if you’re referring to just television, say, then you should say “The TV medium has driven the past ten presidential elections” or some such, rather than “The TV media…”.
Yes, but it seems that it is often used as a collective noun, as if there is a large entity known as “The Media.” Since I like the fickle and ever-changing nature of English language, I don’t see this as a bad thing, as long as it can be done consistent with grammatical rules.
When one says that “the media have led the charge,” it seems like you’ve got different methods of mass communication acting together, leading a charge. A medium is not even a tangible object, much less a being capable of leading a charge. If you are going to use media this way, having ignored its correct meaning, I don’t see any reason to maintain grammatical rules that aren’t relevant to the word in that usage.
When one says that “the media has led the charge,” the “incorrect” grammar clarifies that you are using the word “incorrectly” as well. If you’re going to allow the incorrect usage, why not stick it with the incorrect grammar that goes with it. Or you could tell everyone yammering on about what the “media” does that they’re wrong, and educate them in Latin plurals.
Regarding media as singular or plural usage, it is a collective noun. Now in Latin, the word is a plural form, with medium being the singular, so it <i>should</i> get the plural verb form. But this is English, and English often corrupts latin word forms when stealing them into the language - just look at the word data. So in English, media has been coopted to be a singular word as well as a plural word.
Or else everyone who uses it that was is wrong. 
So “The media has corrupted the election process,” would be correct if you are treating “media” as one giant collective noun - a conglomerate of all mass communications companies and formats working together. No?
I think that usage is typically reserved for referring to all news agencies - paper, magazine, radio, television, whatever - as a collective.
I think it’s just sloppy language that has become common usage.
Oh, I don’t mind other folks (incorrectly) treating “data” or “media” as singular nouns… I know that language evolves, English is not Latin, yadda yadda. I’m just a stickler for things like that, myself, and try to use the “correct” forms even if nobody else cares. For that matter, I also use “whence” and “whither”. Subtle nuances are good.
I too.