The BBC having problems with English
 

The problem is not limited to the BBC. I've seen a number of major English mistakes lately from major news organizations.

Don't they have editors anymore?
.
.

Websites are like takeaway menus. They are written too quickly, checked too sloppily and will always contain at least one glaring error.

The Beeb's newsite is terrible for it.

I have always been tempted to contact them and offer them my proof reading skills. £5 for every mistake I find. It might keep them on track. I always want to proof read for takeaways as well - one dish of my choice to check the menu before any money is spent on printing. Not a bad deal. I've never had the front to try it though.

And sadly - most of the customers (of either) never notice anyway.

I think you should give the BBC thing a shot, SG. It sounds like a good idea to me.

I wonder how many people even notice? They're so used to seeing typos and poor spelling/grammar/composition on the web, it probably doesn't even register.:rolleyes:

Is this thread like the emperor's new clothes? OMG that's truly an horrendous thing for the Beeb to do..... so obvious it doesn't need pointing out....... of course if you can't see it you're clearly beneath us and very, very stupid.....

I'm still not sure what the problem is. Is it "compared with" instead of "compared to?" Either is perfectly acceptable to me.

Last line: illicit should be elicit. Something that spellcheck wouldn't catch.

Maybe they're cutting costs by outsourcing editorial duties to the F7 key?

I should never be an editor. I know the difference between those two words but never would have caught that.

I also don't like the use of "anti-abortion" as a noun, which it ain't.

If you want to get really technical, you aren't supposed to say "compared to countries such as the UK" either.

Such as serves the same function as which--both must begin their own clause, and require a comma. To attach it to the current clause would require using the word "like" (instead of such as) or "that" (instead of which.)

What they really meant was "compared to other countries, such as the UK" or else "compared to countries like the UK."

Pie and Clod's criticisms are correct, but it was the misuse of illicit vs. elicit that grabbed me. I'm not really a grammar nazi, but "that word doesn't mean what they think it means".

What if I elicit an illicit response? Would such an act of eliciting be illicit?

Explicitly!

Headlines often have unneccessary words missing; as long as you can understand them they should be OK.

My gripe was that it compares two incomparable things: the abortion issue, and the UK.

What they meant was: why does this issue elicit such a strong respons in the USA compared to in the UK?