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.....

monster;569998 wrote:

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?

joelnwil;570026 wrote:

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

Explicitly!

Pie;570015 wrote:

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.

Clodfobble;570023 wrote:

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?

Anyone here thinking this could all be solved if we just simplifed the language a little?

ZenGum;570081 wrote:

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

Because we Merkins are a bunch of fundie morons, apparently.

Next!

Yeah ... they call that NEWS?

Doesn't respons need another 'e'? :D

dar512;570024 wrote:

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".

That was my take as well. The UK is always down on our gun issue and violence so that bit was no shock. They are no different than our press; they are in the business to sell papers and adverts.

DanaC;570082 wrote:

Anyone here thinking this could all be solved if we just [COLOR="Red"]simplifed[/COLOR] the language a little?

[COLOR="Red"]Spelling Nazi[/COLOR] :eyebrow:

Aliantha;570102 wrote:

Doesn't respons need another 'e'? :D

:lol:
I noticed that just after Pie quoted it, so I thought it would be bad manners to edit it.

Ahh, no, ahh, I had noticed Dana's typo and so I was trying to be gentlemanly and make one myself, yes, that was it.

Right....well you can all just go fcuk yourselves :P

What? Wait! You aren't gonna....

nevermind

The BBC are becoming noticeably slack on their interpretation of English.A good friend and I used to stay up late,watching for errors in their news-ticker which runs along the bottom of the screen on BBC News 24.We saw some howlers,but I'm too not-stoned to remember.

"the beeb" wrote:

There have been rats - lots of rats. We've actually seen them going in the front of the house," she said.

"It's just an eyesore and it has an affect on the property prices.

"It's a lovely street - everyone is here for everyone else - but it's not fair on those living nearby."

oh look my fave appeared today. seems the proof-readers are not very affective these days ;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8081232.stm