[Misc] Declining journalism/editing standards on BBC website...

[Goldstone1976]

It’s one thing having a pop at the Argus or the local rag that one of our esteemed members writes for; its quite another when the BBC follows them down into the abyss, albeit more slowly.

For about three years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles containing errors. These errors are predominantly grammatical, but there are some spelling errors, and, regrettably, a recent surge of articles that are factually incorrect. I would estimate that they are currently running at a rate of about 30% of all articles that are reasonably sizable (say 300 words or more) containing at least one error.

I know this is possibly just me, but I find it irritating, jarring, and shoddy. I accept that the quantity of output is now huge, but that excuse doesn’t cut it for me.

The latest article to transgress is the one on the sale of the Salvator Mundi, the first article I’ve read today, which surpasses normal standards by having two errors.

“In 1958 it was sold at auction in London for a mere £45 at auction in London.” Seriously?

“It apparently once belonged to King Charles I of England in the 1500s...”. Given Charles I wasn’t born until Nov 1600, this seems implausible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42000696



Sometimes, the article is corrected, mostly not. It should be right before publication.

Time to pull your stockings up, Auntie.

 

[alfredmizen]

It’s one thing having a pop at the Argus or the local rag that one of our esteemed members writes for; its quite another when the BBC follows them down into the abyss, albeit more slowly.

For about three years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles containing errors. These errors are predominantly grammatical, but there are some spelling errors, and, regrettably, a recent surge of articles that are factually incorrect. I would estimate that they are currently running at a rate of about 30% of all articles that are reasonably sizable (say 300 words or more) containing at least one error.

I know this is possibly just me, but I find it irritating, jarring, and shoddy. I accept that the quantity of output is now huge, but that excuse doesn’t cut it for me.

The latest article to transgress is the one on the sale of the Salvator Mundi, the first article I’ve read today, which surpasses normal standards by having two errors.

“In 1958 it was sold at auction in London for a mere £45 at auction in London.” Seriously?

“It apparently once belonged to King Charles I of England in the 1500s...”. Given Charles I wasn’t born until Nov 1600, this seems implausible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42000696



Sometimes, the article is corrected, mostly not. It should be right before publication.

Time to pull your stockings up, Auntie.

spot on, not just the beeb though , newspapers are just as bad .

 

[Gwylan]

spot on, not just the beeb though , newspapers are just as bad .

Newspapers have radically cut their subs desks - they were the people who used to spot errors like these. And as for websites... there seems to be a curious belief among senior managers that, somehow, if you're writing for the web, there's no need to have any subs. The rationale for this is that if there's a mistake then it can be fixed later (as has happened with the King Charles mistake highlighted above). It doesn't always work (as can be seen by the fact that the "auction in London mistake" highlighted above, hasn't been corrected).
I don't think it's fair to blame journalists for this: mistakes are often made in the heat of writing something very quickly, but they've always been fixed before. There are probably no more mistakes being made now than there were 20 or 30 years ago, it's just that the safety net has been removed.

 

[Brovion]

I got banned from the Argus site for acting as an unofficial subbie and pointing out errors in the stories. (One classic: apparently The Levellers (band) were so named because they used to live near The Level).

Back to the BBC, if you google it in the little panel on the right-hand side of the google search results it says its motto was "Live the story". Talk about dumbing down, whatever happened to "Nation shall speak peace unto Nation", or "Inform, Educate, Entertain"?

EDIT: Just tried it now and that has admittedly gone. It WAS there, honest.

 

[Bakero]

It’s one thing having a pop at the Argus or the local rag that one of our esteemed members writes for; its quite another when the BBC follows them down into the abyss, albeit more slowly.

It's

 

[Goldstone1976]

It's

 

[portlock seagull]

Seems acceptable this days and excused under the ‘yeah, but language is always evolving so daan’t matter does it?’ which is really saying ‘I’m too lazy, thick etc’ to learn. Excuse on message boards like this because people often in a hurry, using smartphones and typing quickly with autocorrect etc. But yes, when it’s your job to know as a journalist or editor then completely different and very poor standards. I quite like learning English, still do daily! Forget French, I haven’t mastered our mother tongue yet!

 

[portlock seagull]

I got banned from the Argus site for acting as an unofficial subbie and pointing out errors in the stories. (One classic: apparently The Levellers (band) were so named because they used to live near The Level).

Back to the BBC, if you google it in the little panel on the right-hand side of the google search results it says its motto was "Live the story". Talk about dumbing down, whatever happened to "Nation shall speak peace unto Nation", or "Inform, Educate, Entertain"?

EDIT: Just tried it now and that has admittedly gone. It WAS there, honest.

Seriously?!! The Argus wrote that about the Levellers?! Goons, all of them if so. That’s brilliant. Next they’ll be saying Sri Lanka’s capital was named after the famous TV detective.

 

[Brovion]

Seriously?!! The Argus wrote that about the Levellers?! Goons, all of them if so. That’s brilliant. Next they’ll be saying Sri Lanka’s capital was named after the famous TV detective.

Yeah. The story is still there, with the offending line altered to "some say are named after the Level in Brighton"

http://www.theargus.co.uk/leisure/music/11514220.The_Levellers_set_to_reveal_all_in_new_documentary/

Some of the comments refer to the original mistake. My one (Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit) wasn't deleted!.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I've noticed, more and more, H being pronounced Haitch, on tv. I find incredibly irritating as well as being incorrect.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Seriously?!! The Argus wrote that about the Levellers?! Goons, all of them if so. That’s brilliant. Next they’ll be saying Sri Lanka’s capital was named after the famous TV detective.

Kojak?

 

[The Clamp]

It’s one thing having a pop at the Argus or the local rag that one of our esteemed members writes for; its quite another when the BBC follows them down into the abyss, albeit more slowly.

For about three years, I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles containing errors. These errors are predominantly grammatical, but there are some spelling errors, and, regrettably, a recent surge of articles that are factually incorrect. I would estimate that they are currently running at a rate of about 30% of all articles that are reasonably sizable (say 300 words or more) containing at least one error.

I know this is possibly just me, but I find it irritating, jarring, and shoddy. I accept that the quantity of output is now huge, but that excuse doesn’t cut it for me.

The latest article to transgress is the one on the sale of the Salvator Mundi, the first article I’ve read today, which surpasses normal standards by having two errors.

“In 1958 it was sold at auction in London for a mere £45 at auction in London.” Seriously?

“It apparently once belonged to King Charles I of England in the 1500s...”. Given Charles I wasn’t born until Nov 1600, this seems implausible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42000696



Sometimes, the article is corrected, mostly not. It should be right before publication.

Time to pull your stockings up, Auntie.

It's pandemic across most media outlets. Combination of thicker and less conscientious people.

 

[Audax]

I'm more concerned that they've started falling into the daily rag habit of putting misleading clickbait headlines on what are otherwise pointless articles. It's been changed since, but saw one the other day that loudly proclaimed that a self-driving shuttle in the US had "crashed" on its first day. Read the article, turns out the shuttle was stationary at the time and a truck had reversed into it. Absolutely nothing newsworthy there at all, unless you stick a clickbait headline on it.

Edit: gawd, another one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-42008669. Headline on the front page is "School asks parents for £1 a day for pens", headline on the article itself is "School in Theresa May's constituency seeks funds for pens", and then when you read the article the reality is that the money is for a lot more than just "pens" ... "A primary school in Prime Minister Theresa May's constituency has asked parents for a £1 daily donation to help pay for stationery and books."

Clickbait headline, although in this case the article itself is newsworthy. Just wish the headlines were accurate, given the modern habit of people skim reading headlines and forming opinions without ever reading the article.

 

[Coalburner]

There is a lost generation out there who went to school during a politically correct era in which it was reckoned that spelling and grammar did not matter as long as the meaning was apparent. As a consequence, spelling and grammar were not taught. Many of those who were thus "uneducated" are themselves now teachers and cannot pass on knowledge that they do not have. Bad spelling and grammar are now, sadly, self perpetuating.

 

[Audax]

Seems acceptable this days and excused [...].

I quite like learning English, still do daily! Forget French, I haven’t mastered our mother tongue yet!

"these"

And here ends today's lesson.

 

[Gwylan]

It's pandemic across most media outlets. Combination of thicker and less conscientious people.

As I explained earlier, that is complete bollocks. There's no difference in quality of copy being produced, the increase in the number of errors is entirely down to other factors.

 

[crabface]

There is also a growing trend of not actually writing an article, but just taking a load of tweets from twitter and pasting them into the article to make a story. Drives me mad.

 

[Gwylan]

There is also a growing trend of not actually writing an article, but just taking a load of tweets from twitter and pasting them into the article to make a story. Drives me mad.

Drives me mad too but, again, that's due to cost-cutting within publishing houses too. There's been a reduction in staff so the journalists have less time to pursue a story but, to make things worse, they've also cut senior journalists (as they cost too much) and replace them with kids, who are less experienced.

Because these kids are anxious to make a good impression, they work long hours (which is why it's not true to say they're less conscientious) but they don't really know how to work their contacts - or even make them in the first place.

When I started out as a journalist, I spent a lot of time lunching people or going for drinks in the evening, picking up snippets of gossip and getting to know people with knowledge. Magazines and newspapers probably half (or a quarter) of the staff they had then and there's less time to do that - it's much easier to pick out a few tweets and put a story together that way.

I've had, gulp, 34 years in the business and seen some earth-shattering changes in publishing. I was made redundant in my last job as they merged my job with another and brought in younger (cheaper) journalists. As a freelancer, I'm some distance from the problems at publishing but it's not a situation that's going to get any better.

 

[Mr Banana]

The literacy of its news and social media has dived. Whoever redesigned sport so that you have to look at the entire month's results before you can find the latest ones is a bit of a numpty. The BBC always goes in cycles of quality, though. They'll sort it

 

[Perfidious Albion]

I blame the education system , since the importance of spelling and grammar has been downplayed in recent decades. We have teachers who cannot do it so how can students learn?

The attention to detail in news coverage is evident. The demands of 24 hour news must make it harder. The BBC has been accused of political bias too, and I think it is sometimes justified. All that said, I am glad we have the Beeb. Whatever it's shortcomings it is much better than Sky ... ( did you ever see any of Sky's Fox News from USA ? ...