Spell check just doesn't cut it anymore. Not quite sure it did to begin with but it certainly hasn't stopped the amount of online nonsense that makes it to "print" nowadays. This just proves that the only person that can succesfully mediate gramitical errors in his/her writing is the author themselves. Craig Silverman is absolutely correct when he says that "one of the best ways to learn how to avoid errors is to make them in the first place." I can't remmeber how many mistakes I've made, only once. Never to be repeated again. That's how I learn. It seems that's not just a personal trait. Therapeutically speaking, this is good news. Still, mistakes are made and as journalists this can be very embarrassing. Copy editors too, as their eyes are the last to see and edit the text before it goes to "print". These issues seem easy to avoid and even easier to correct, especially if your job is correcting grammatical errors, but be that as it may let's take a look at some inaccuracies in todays online news publications.
Accuracy, or inaccuracy in this case, doesn't just stop at incorrect spelling. Sentance structure and fact checking can also lead to brutal inaccuracies in the journalism field. Fact checking has to top the list of things needing to be accurate. Nothing worse than priniting inaccurate or even ambigious information. Especially when comes to death. The Sun published an article regarding Dave Burns, the man who shot and killed his former employer at Great West Honda in Edmonton, early Friday morning. It seems the journalist isn't quite sure how old Burns is so he runs it like this: "Burns, now 54 or 55, was charged with murder but pleaded guilty to a reduced charge," 54 or 55? Which one is it? How do you not know that? They don't even bother to explain it either. This is ridiculous. As a reader I couldn't help but laugh. As a journalist I can't help but shake my head in confusion. Hopefully this reporter learns from his/her mistake and gets the age of the next killer/suicidal maniac correct.
Sentance structure is equally important. As students we learn about comma splices, fused sentances and run-on sentances very early in our education and it all seems like mundane nonsense but everyday writers fall victim to these grammatical inaccuracies. Writing a lead can be difficult, especially if you're trying to fit a lot of information into it. The Associated Press posted an article on The Sun website where the lead was a classic example of a comma splice. "At least 94 people living near a lead factory, most of them children, have tested positive for lead poisoning, state media said Monday, prompting authorities to order the closure of the plant." It pains me to read these leads. I never bothered to read the rest of the article, despite it being an important article. Children with lead poisoning? That is absolutely despicable but I could just as easily find a different article, written by a different journalist. Inaccuracy leads to distrust. Sooner or later the public picks up on publications that continuously print errors.
The Edmonton Journal posted an article regarding the legal age limit for senior citizens. This is an important issue for society and for me personally having lost a friend to a car accident involving a senior who crossed the median on a secondary highway. The artcile has a paraphrased, not a direct, quote that falls terribly into subject/verb disagreement based on number. "The consequences of stripping a senior's licences also hang heavy in doctors' minds, he said"." Once again, not a direct quote. Licences should be singular. Easy fix. Should have been take care of, but it wasn't. Lucky for me. Still this demonstrates the fact that mistakes still occur in the news world. They happen all the time. The only way to limit your mistakes is to make them and learn by them, just as Silverman says. Can't say it any better. The man is dead on.
Picture taken from detbuzzsaw from Flickr
No comments:
Post a Comment