(Full story here)
Seriously, I thought the threat to real journalism was automation, but apparently not. Will someone please buy the DB a spell-checker, for pete's sake? Feel free to argue that they making a subtle linguistic argument about the extremeness of the group's irreligiosity, but I don't buy it.
(Yes, I'll blog about saturday's rally very soon, I promise.)
9 comments:
I've been wanting to write a little essay on how the quality of grammar and spelling in journalism has greatly declined in the information age due to our culture of immediacy.
Well, we can't blame staff writer Wendy Leung for it as she had it spelled correctly in the body of the article. So it's those #$%@! (spelling?) headline writers again. Perhaps we should let her know that some headline writer mucked up her story and made her look bad?
Now if we can only get them to stop saying things like "the amount of people at the rally" or "there were less people there today than yesterday."
At least Stater Bros checkout signs say "15 or FEWER items."
For some, spell check is against their religion.
Did anyone notice the headline in the Daily Bulletin the other day which mentioned "Pomoma"?
Maybe they need to turn on the squiggly line feature on their browser? Firefox spell check has that.
"Feel free to argue that they making a subtle linguistic argument..."
"They making"? Oh, Meg. Now I may have to write something about the (ahem) death of blogging.
What's amazing is that the error remains, at least it was still up about 4 p.m. Thursday. Spelling error had been transcribed into the frame containing the table of contents.
Nice to see that Wendy joined us. And with a good pun to boot.
Thanks,
Haven't checked all that frequently, but by 9:45 p.m. Friday they have fixed it.
Post a Comment