The BBC having problems with English

dar512 · 06-01-2009, 09:08 AM

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?
.
.

Sundae · 06-01-2009, 10:14 AM

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.

dar512 · 06-01-2009, 10:46 AM

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

xoxoxoBruce · 06-01-2009, 11:11 AM

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.

monster · 06-01-2009, 11:55 AM

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.....

glatt · 06-01-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

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.

Flint · 06-01-2009, 12:19 PM

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?

glatt · 06-01-2009, 12:23 PM

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

Pie · 06-01-2009, 12:47 PM

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

Clodfobble · 06-01-2009, 02:20 PM

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."

dar512 · 06-01-2009, 02:35 PM

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".

joelnwil · 06-01-2009, 02:48 PM

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

dar512 · 06-01-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joelnwil

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

Explicitly!

Happy Monkey · 06-01-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie

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

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

ZenGum · 06-01-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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."

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?

06-01-2009, 09:08 AM	#1
dar512 dar512 is now Pete Zicato Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburb Posts: 4,968	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? . . Attached Images __________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Friedrich Schiller

06-01-2009, 10:46 AM	#3
dar512 dar512 is now Pete Zicato Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburb Posts: 4,968	I think you should give the BBC thing a shot, SG. It sounds like a good idea to me. __________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Friedrich Schiller

06-01-2009, 11:11 AM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	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. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

06-01-2009, 11:55 AM	#5
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	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..... __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

06-01-2009, 12:19 PM	#7
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	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? __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

06-01-2009, 10:14 AM	#2
Sundae polaroid of perfection Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 24,185	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.

06-01-2009, 12:23 PM	#8
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	I should never be an editor. I know the difference between those two words but never would have caught that.

06-01-2009, 12:47 PM	#9
Pie Gone and done Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,808	I also don't like the use of "anti-abortion" as a noun, which it ain't. __________________ per·son \ˈpər-sən\ (noun) - an ephemeral collection of small, irrational decisions The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.

06-01-2009, 02:20 PM	#10
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	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." __________________ My book My other book My spirit animal

06-01-2009, 02:35 PM	#11
dar512 dar512 is now Pete Zicato Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburb Posts: 4,968	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". __________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Friedrich Schiller

06-01-2009, 02:48 PM	#12
joelnwil Major Inhabitant Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Silver Spring MD Posts: 128	What if I elicit an illicit response? Would such an act of eliciting be illicit?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode