"But it wasn’t until I noticed that Oxford comma that it all suddenly became very clear. That’s not right. That couldn’t be the Wall Street Journal." (From OP)
Does anybody know why an Oxford comma would be a signal that the quote isn't from the WSJ?
I've always found that using an oxford comma ("red, black, and blue" instead of "red, black and blue") is just common sense.
Separation by comma is a concrete indication that the items on the list are separated, which is useful in situations where the last two items could mean something different if not separated ("black and blue" has it's own special connotations, whereas "black, and blue" doesn't).
When you read a comma in writing, there is a pause in the flow of the sentence, like there would be in speech. Overusing commas can distract from the point you are trying to make.
I find the Oxford comma is completely unnecessary. If you find yourself in a situation where you feel a common turn of phrase (like black and blue) necessitates the addition of a comma, try switching around the items in the list (i.e. 'black, red and blue' vs. 'red, black and blue'). Less commas == more flow.
PS. I am only posting my 2 cents because you misused "it's" in your last parenthetical.
"Opinions vary among writers and editors on the usage or avoidance of the serial comma. In American English, the serial comma is standard usage in non-journalistic writing that follows the Chicago Manual of Style. Journalists, however, usually follow the AP Stylebook, which advises against it."
Does anybody know why an Oxford comma would be a signal that the quote isn't from the WSJ?
I've always found that using an oxford comma ("red, black, and blue" instead of "red, black and blue") is just common sense.
Separation by comma is a concrete indication that the items on the list are separated, which is useful in situations where the last two items could mean something different if not separated ("black and blue" has it's own special connotations, whereas "black, and blue" doesn't).