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

[AmexRuislip]

Maybe you did better than you think.

Question 2 is wrong.

I threw the ball further than John.
The rain caused further flooding in the region.
My house is further from the station.
All of the above are correct. In British English, further and farther can both be used in relation to distance.

Question 4 is also wrong.

The quiz that tested grammar knowledge was very difficult.
The quiz which tested grammar knowledge was very difficult.
The quiz, which was very difficult, tested grammar knowledge.

All of these are correct. Which or that can be used to refer to things in a defining relative clause (like the first two sentences). Which can be used in a non-defining clause.

 

[Bry Nylon]

The BBC insist on spelling NASA as Nasa. Even after they have been informed by NASA that they are wrong.

Poor form. Spelling NASA correctly isn't rocket science.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

It has been going on for a while. The BBC insist on spelling NASA as Nasa. Even after they have been informed by NASA that they are wrong.

Certain media organisations’ house styles require that lower case is used when the acronym is pronounced as if it is a word - Fifa, Nasa, Uefa - but not when the letters are pronounced individually - USA, UCL, LMA.

 

[Gwylan]

Certain media organisations’ house styles require that lower case is used when the acronym is pronounced as if it is a word - Fifa, Nasa, Uefa - but not when the letters are pronounced individually - USA, UCL, LMA.

Yep. that's always been the case in every organisation I've worked for - if the acronym is pronounced, then it's lower case.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Certain media organisations’ house styles require that lower case is used when the acronym is pronounced as if it is a word - Fifa, Nasa, Uefa - but not when the letters are pronounced individually - USA, UCL, LMA.

. If we followed American conventions, we'd have to start inserting superfluous (to us) punctuation, as in U.S., and U.N. Although those upstart colonials don't extend the practice to U.S.A. How inconsistently weird.

 

[clapham_gull]

Dear Points of View....

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Where's the horse?

In your case, cearly bolted.

For clarity, I'd refer the Hon Gentleman to the thread titled "And we thought Chris Hughton needs to reign it in a bit!"

 

[PTC Gull]

Certain media organisations’ house styles require that lower case is used when the acronym is pronounced as if it is a word - Fifa, Nasa, Uefa - but not when the letters are pronounced individually - USA, UCL, LMA.

I bow to those with more experience than I. Coincidentally I later read an article called "a study in arrant pedantry" dealing with the spelling and use of Moon vs. moon. Now that's another can of worms

 

[CheeseRolls]

*cough* peek not peak.

I think you have misunderstood this. It appears the Prof is aroused when presented with leftie slackers at the BBC and suggests others might enjoy a similar private moment. That at least is how I have read this.

 

[Blue3]

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.

What Kojack

 

[Goldstone1976]

Certain media organisations’ house styles require that lower case is used when the acronym is pronounced as if it is a word - Fifa, Nasa, Uefa - but not when the letters are pronounced individually - USA, UCL, LMA.

Yep. that's always been the case in every organisation I've worked for - if the acronym is pronounced, then it's lower case.

Indeed so; but a house style also requires that the rule is applied consistently - not least because if it isn’t, it ceases to be a house style and instead becomes mere sloppiness. I refer you to post #68.

For an organ that does have a house style, and consistently applies it, The Economist takes some beating. They’ve even published it in the form of a book.

 

[Audax]

Has anyone else spotted the 'stationary' section, in the latest Tesco toy catalogue?

Obviously put them on sale because they weren't moving off the shelves at the normal price.

Certain media organisations’ house styles require that lower case is used when the acronym is pronounced as if it is a word - Fifa, Nasa, Uefa - but not when the letters are pronounced individually - USA, UCL, LMA.

Yep. that's always been the case in every organisation I've worked for - if the acronym is pronounced, then it's lower case.

Indeed so; but a house style also requires that the rule is applied consistently - not least because if it isn’t, it ceases to be a house style and instead becomes mere sloppiness. I refer you to post #68.

For an organ that does have a house style, and consistently applies it, The Economist takes some beating. They’ve even published it in the form of a book.

Re: all of the above, I'm sure some folks could have a lively debate over whether or not "house styles" should override the wishes of the owner of the 'word' in question.

I have some sympathy for NASA in this regard. I work for giffgaff, and our branding calls for the company name to *never* be capitalised. NASA is the opposite from the sounds of things: they identify themselves as "NASA" and I think it's fair enough for them to object to being labelled incorrectly as "Nasa" due to style guides.

My personal opinion is that style guides should respect company brand guidelines. It's fair enough to apply a generic style guide in situations where there is no brand guidance, but where that brand guidance does exist it should trump style guides.

 

[Gwylan]

My personal opinion is that style guides should respect company brand guidelines. It's fair enough to apply a generic style guide in situations where there is no brand guidance, but where that brand guidance does exist it should trump style guides.

I don't think many publishing houses would agree with you. NASA is a pretty short word but what happens if a company calls itself WONDER-WIDGETS and is involved in a takeover battle with its bitter rival MARVELLOUS METALLIC, not only would any copy look like alphabet soup but print titles would struggle to fit company names into headlines.

The reason for a house style is make things easier to read and, as a rule, most publishing house shy away from using too many capitals (in this country anyway, that's not so true in the US).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

After the gloom and doom of this thread, I found this heartwarming and (dare I say it) sensible. A school in Kidderminster is reviving the art of letter writing to penpals, choosing an elderly care home. The children love receiving their letters, as do the elderly residents. It gives them practise in English, grammar, and also benefits both sides.
The children ask questions, which the older people can answer so it's also a social history lesson.

I hope more schools take up this idea.


https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/931449012175147008

[tweet]931449012175147008[/tweet]

 

[Sirnormangall]

In your case, cearly bolted.

For clarity, I'd refer the Hon Gentleman to the thread titled "And we thought Chris Hughton needs to reign it in a bit!"

Thanks - that's the first time I've been called Honourable or Gentleman!

 

[Audax]

I don't think many publishing houses would agree with you. NASA is a pretty short word but what happens if a company calls itself WONDER-WIDGETS and is involved in a takeover battle with its bitter rival MARVELLOUS METALLIC, not only would any copy look like alphabet soup but print titles would struggle to fit company names into headlines.

The reason for a house style is make things easier to read and, as a rule, most publishing house shy away from using too many capitals (in this country anyway, that's not so true in the US).

Thankfully, the situation you describe would be rather rare. There's not many companies out there that a) choose to go with obnoxiously long all-caps brand names, and b) survive long enough to cause a long term issue.

Even so, I still thank that brand should trump style guides *and* readability. Brands spend an awful lot of time, effort, and money to build up brand recognition, and I think publishing houses need to think long and hard before they arbitrarily decide to simply ignore all that in favour of their own style guides. Going back to my employer: giffgaff is giffgaff. It's not Giffgaff or GiffGaff or any other variation someone might come up with.

 

[Gwylan]

Even so, I still thank that brand should trump style guides *and* readability. Brands spend an awful lot of time, effort, and money to build up brand recognition

That's not really the media company's problem though is it? Their aim is to make publications as readable as possible, not to promote other brands. The only justification for adhering to brand names would be if the brands spent huge amounts of money on advertising. This did happen at one place I worked when we produced a highly lucrative supplement for one acronym-named company - we did go against style guide for that!

I think publishing houses need to think long and hard before they arbitrarily decide to simply ignore all that in favour of their own style guides.

You're way off the mark with this one: the idea that style guides are thrown together in a few minutes with little or no consideration of the consequence is complete nonsense. I've actually been present at a new company launch where a style guide is put together from scratch and they involve a lot of meetings, a lot of discussion and a lot of arguments. Even well-established style guides are constantly being overhauled - there's nothing short or arbitrary about them,

 

[El Presidente]

That's not really the media company's problem though is it? Their aim is to make publications as readable as possible, not to promote other brands. The only justification for adhering to brand names would be if the brands spent huge amounts of money on advertising. This did happen at one place I worked when we produced a highly lucrative supplement for one acronym-named company - we did go against style guide for that!




You're way off the mark with this one: the idea that style guides are thrown together in a few minutes with little or no consideration of the consequence is complete nonsense. I've actually been present at a new company launch where a style guide is put together from scratch and they involve a lot of meetings, a lot of discussion and a lot of arguments. Even well-established style guides are constantly being overhauled - there's nothing short or arbitrary about them,

I trust the style guide contains something in relation to red shoes?

To give the BBC some credit, sometimes they get things right. There was a bloke on BBC Breakfast yesterday who referred to Crystal Palace as a 'small club' for example (at about 1 minute 40 secs).

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I trust the style guide contains something in relation to red shoes?

To give the BBC some credit, sometimes they get things right. There was a bloke on BBC Breakfast yesterday who referred to Crystal Palace as a 'small club' for example (at about 1 minute 40 secs).



 

[Gwylan]

I trust the style guide contains something in relation to red shoes?

No, but a style guide at a company where I did work explained how organisations were singular by pointing that "Crystal Palace is a rubbish team from London" and not "Crystal Palace are ..."

I can't imagine how that got in there.