I thought this might be a nice way to segue into the general point I wanted to make. I've had quite a few emails over the past few days with spelling or grammar errors from either the print edition or the website, peaking, of course, with the misspelling of 'Barak' Obama's name in a political article on page A2 late last week - a mistake that is still on the website as of writing. The fact that such a blatant mistake could get past the journalist, his subeditor and whatever proof-readers theoretically work at the newspaper is quite depressing, even if it is 'just a typo'.Sure, everyone knows what John Armstrong means by 'Barak Obama' but, to me, that isn't the point. If I want to read spelling mistakes, I'll read a blog. Newspaper owners and editors keep saying that one of the things that sets newspapers apart from blogs is professionalism. Despite the urgings of some, I haven't been doing any quantitative analysis of things going on in the Herald over the year, but anecdotally it seems to me that such errors have become considerably more frequent over the past year. To me, it is carelessness, and once you start getting careless about things like spelling then why not get careless about news?
Anyway, I'm not going to keep banging on about these 'minor' errors on the blog, unless they're particularly hilarious. I just thought I would put the view out there that I don't think they're totally innocuous.
Posts
Teh Herald isn't the only news organisation that struggles with the US President's name. Howzabout ... Reuters (via the Washington Post) ...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/15/AR2009111501587.html
And many more...
http://news.google.co.nz/news/search?q=intitle:%22Barak+Obama%22
Oh please. leave it alone. get down from your high horse. it was a typo. you think other papers are any better? how about the guardian, which recently claimed through a typo that iran had nuclear weapons, along with 'the russias'? how about the telegraph that will start at least one headline a day with the words PIC PLEASE on its website.
ReplyDelete'not totally innocent'. when has a typo ever been 'guilty'?
ReplyDeleteI can't believe you're using Internet Explorer
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 1: That may be right. But then I'm not just saying the Herald is bad *relative* to other newspapers.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2: Erm, my post clearly says 'innocuous', not 'innocent'. Sorry.
Anonymous 3: I don't use IE - my secret informant does.
No. Don't 'leave it alone'. When subs are laid off and nobody says a damn thing this is what happens. It's fucking right to highlight why we need subs. And why subs shouldn't get laid off.
ReplyDeletebut by highlighting these things you are indirectly laughing at the poor fuckers who are left. An internet smirk really doesn't help anyone.
ReplyDeleteNo you're not. How is that even a logical response? If the Powers That Be know that subs are needed then they might stop getting rid of them. The only way they'll get the message is if they're shown how much the paper sucks without subs.
ReplyDeleteDon't you get it? The owners don't care. It was their decision. All you are doing is mocking already overworked sub-editors.
ReplyDeleteIf you honestly think a comment on a blog is going to reverse a worldwide trend in media (un)employment, go for it...
ReplyDeleteCall it a hobby.
ReplyDeleteOk lets do nothing then. And it's not overworked subs it's NOBODY. That's the point. Nobody is subbing.
ReplyDeleteWrong. There's a team of them in Ellerslie. They're looking for more desk monkeys if you're interested.
ReplyDeleteWhat's a team? Three people?
ReplyDeleteMore than three, but certainly not enough.
ReplyDeleteThe real problem, aside from all the embarrassing mistakes, is that the culture of the sub-editing craft is being killed off.
It's more clerical assistance now, or dare I say nothing more than a factory line. No one is trained as a sub any more, no one wants to be a sub any more. It is no longer seen as a viable career.
When I started out as a journalist, a little over a decade ago, reporters wanted to become subs. They were respected.
Indeed, on many newspapers I've worked at subs would write the majority of the copy that made the paper. Reporters would gather stories and collect facts. The real writing was done by the backbench and downtable. They had the experience and the knowledge. In writing terms, reporters would learn their best lessons by what happened to their work after it left them.
But the title 'sub-editor' these days is bandied about as an insult by 21-year-old 'writers' straight from their journalism courses. They have no one to tell them how the profession should work and, to be frank, could care less. To them it's a dull desk job of copyfitting and proof-reading someone else's work.
And so no one of talent coming through the ranks wants to be a sub-editor, and there are no real subbing jobs left these days. In 10 years time, it will be seen as antiquated a profession as typesetting.
Well said. That's spot on.
ReplyDeleteI might add that it won't become antiquated because it's obsolete - they are needed now more than ever.
ReplyDelete