The BBC and spelling
Discussion
Is the BBC losing the plot a bit as regards spelling and suchlike? There are wildly differing opinions as to the BBC but, leaving the political stuff aside, it's usually pretty good in its use of English. I read the this article this morning though and spotted...
She spent three weeks there. During that time Chris bought their daughter to visit, and slowly began to forgive her.
Ordinarily I wouldn't have mentioned it as everyone makes mistakes but I've noticed similar things on several articles the BBC has published over recent days. I wonder whether they are maybe farming out certain stories to outside agencies or something and aren't proof-reading them. It doesn't have a by-line which is a bit weird. Surely it would do if it were a BBC journalist who wrote it?
Yes, I know that this will windup the spelling/grammar Nazis who will say that it's irrelevant. This is the BBC thugh, so its far from irrelevant. They claim to be the premier media organisation in the country (due to the unique was in which they are funded), if not the world, so I see little excuse for repeated mistakes; mistakes which are somewhat basic when it comes down to it. I do wonder whether the mistake in question was a genuine spelling mistake or whether the writer honestly doesn't actually know that they have used entirely the wrong word.
She spent three weeks there. During that time Chris bought their daughter to visit, and slowly began to forgive her.
Ordinarily I wouldn't have mentioned it as everyone makes mistakes but I've noticed similar things on several articles the BBC has published over recent days. I wonder whether they are maybe farming out certain stories to outside agencies or something and aren't proof-reading them. It doesn't have a by-line which is a bit weird. Surely it would do if it were a BBC journalist who wrote it?
Yes, I know that this will windup the spelling/grammar Nazis who will say that it's irrelevant. This is the BBC thugh, so its far from irrelevant. They claim to be the premier media organisation in the country (due to the unique was in which they are funded), if not the world, so I see little excuse for repeated mistakes; mistakes which are somewhat basic when it comes down to it. I do wonder whether the mistake in question was a genuine spelling mistake or whether the writer honestly doesn't actually know that they have used entirely the wrong word.
It's to do with the general lowering of standards all round.
Cost cutting also plays a part. There is no proper editorial checking or control and this results in slopilly written pieces. Editors cost money and people have to self-edit, even if they aren't really capable of doing so.
It is by no means unique to the BBC.
Cost cutting also plays a part. There is no proper editorial checking or control and this results in slopilly written pieces. Editors cost money and people have to self-edit, even if they aren't really capable of doing so.
It is by no means unique to the BBC.
The Dictator said:
If you are going to criticise others, may I respectfully suggest, you proof read your own post first :-)
"thugh"
And"thugh"
“I read the this article”
“unique was in which they are funded”
But that sort of illustrates the point. There’s spell checking and there’s proofreading.
Since the link doesn’t work, it’s going to be hard to keep track on whether they correct the article
Edited by bigandclever on Wednesday 3rd February 11:22
The Dictator said:
If you are going to criticise others, may I respectfully suggest, you proof read your own post first :-)
"thugh"
The most predictable comment. "thugh"
I'm not claiming that I'm perfect, nor do I claim to be the premier internet message board poster (funded by tax payers) in the UK. I was right on the verge of saying that in my opening post but I thought it would be rude to steal someone's thunder.
bigandclever said:
The Dictator said:
If you are going to criticise others, may I respectfully suggest, you proof read your own post first :-)
"thugh"
And"thugh"
“I read the this article”
“unique was in which they are funded”
But that sort of illustrates the point. There’s spell checking and there’s proofreading.
Since the link doesn’t work, it’s going to be hard to keep track on whether they correct the article
Edited by bigandclever on Wednesday 3rd February 11:22
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-55864799
I see typos and spelling errors on bbc articles regularly. Usually shortly after they go live only to see them fixed up / reworded shortly after. Things like people's names are often wrong in the copy / captions on pictures for some reason.
I was initially surprised that they don't get picked up in the edit before they get released to the news app and would suggest that this indicates that they don't have much of a process when it comes to proof reading / signoff or if they do, it isn't working.
If I had to guess, they have made the trade off that getting lots of content out quickly is more important than the spelling and grammar - This can be fixed up when the public point out their errors and no real harm is done. It is a lowering of standards but maybe their trade off is the right one.
I am going to guess that the error picked up by the OP will be fixed shortly....
I was initially surprised that they don't get picked up in the edit before they get released to the news app and would suggest that this indicates that they don't have much of a process when it comes to proof reading / signoff or if they do, it isn't working.
If I had to guess, they have made the trade off that getting lots of content out quickly is more important than the spelling and grammar - This can be fixed up when the public point out their errors and no real harm is done. It is a lowering of standards but maybe their trade off is the right one.
I am going to guess that the error picked up by the OP will be fixed shortly....
AJL308 said:
AJL308 said:
It doesn't have a by-line which is a bit weird. Surely it would do if it were a BBC journalist who wrote it?
Second sentence .. “The BBC's Melanie Abbott tells the story”. Blame her Anyway, I’m one of those bored w
kers who (far too) frequently tell Auntie she can’t spell. The email is newssiteerrors@bbc.co.ukEdited by bigandclever on Wednesday 3rd February 11:48
Gweeds said:
"funded by tax payers"
As that's the second time you mentioned their funding, is that the real issue for you?
What a great thread!As that's the second time you mentioned their funding, is that the real issue for you?
I will probably stop paying my licence fee over this, after all they apparently claim to be the 'premier media organisation in the UK' so it's ridiculous when mistakes of this magnitude are allowed to slip through the net. Just as well that Boris is about to appoint that beacon of objectivity Paul Dacre to sort out the broadcast media, he will hopefully see off Aunty so we can all live happily ever after in Rupert Murdoch land.
panholio said:
Johnnytheboy said:
As many of their journalists have problems pronouncinG the letter 'g' this should come as no surprise.
Priti Patel has real trouble with this.Gweeds said:
"funded by tax payers"
As that's the second time you mentioned their funding, is that the real issue for you?
It's a significant issue. It's that and "don't go about preaching that you are the best when you're doing things which make it looks like you aren't" - especially when you're funded by the tax payer.As that's the second time you mentioned their funding, is that the real issue for you?
AJL308 said:
It's a significant issue. It's that and "don't go about preaching that you are the best when you're doing things which make it looks like you aren't" - especially when you're funded by the tax payer.
It's a typo. Hardly the end of the world.At least be honest about the axe you're grinding.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff