OK, so we know this refers to a charge from 32 years ago, or a 32 year old charge. But the way it was written was
and made me look twice. I don't think it's technically correct - at least not in Australia.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
32-year ambiguity
SMH reported "Polanski faces weeks in jail before an appeal against his arrest over a 32-year statutory rape charge is heard in court".
OK, so we know this refers to a charge from 32 years ago, or a 32 year old charge. But the way it was written was
and made me look twice. I don't think it's technically correct - at least not in Australia.
OK, so we know this refers to a charge from 32 years ago, or a 32 year old charge. But the way it was written was
and made me look twice. I don't think it's technically correct - at least not in Australia.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
No news is good news.
This is a "heartbeat" placeholder to say that this is blog is not dead or abandoned - but for the last two days I have found NO errors on any Australian media web sites! That's a real turn around - especially for my fairfax reading! Great stuff! :)
I noticed that a news.com.au web site had some spelling errors in one article which obviously missed the spell checker, but that didn't affect the quality of the journalism so I won't blog it.
Note that I am not actively seeking out errors - just noting the ones that crop up in my natural daily reading.
Regards,
Troy
I noticed that a news.com.au web site had some spelling errors in one article which obviously missed the spell checker, but that didn't affect the quality of the journalism so I won't blog it.
Note that I am not actively seeking out errors - just noting the ones that crop up in my natural daily reading.
Regards,
Troy
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Top article marred by half an error.
This has the makings of one of the top articles of the week: home grown journalism, about a local player, on the global scene, in an exotic location, with a hint of vice...and so it rivetingly continues.
Then suddenly an error leaps out of this SMH article: "Crown Melco ... assisted Amax raise $HK2 billion"
Huh? There’s at least a missing “in” + “ing” here. Oh, and I've lost my place. Train of thought gone too. Now where was I?
However, the same article in The Age is correct with: "Crown Melco ... helped Amax raise $HK2 billion".
So if you habitually read both papers it's merely half
Check out the SMH article with error here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/macaus-seedy-casino-war-turns-to-gold-20090921-fyn5.html
and the correct Age article here: http://www.theage.com.au/business/hard-men-reign-in-packers-dream-city-20090921-fym8.html
Then suddenly an error leaps out of this SMH article: "Crown Melco ... assisted Amax raise $HK2 billion"
Huh? There’s at least a missing “in” + “ing” here. Oh, and I've lost my place. Train of thought gone too. Now where was I?
However, the same article in The Age is correct with: "Crown Melco ... helped Amax raise $HK2 billion".
So if you habitually read both papers it's merely half
Check out the SMH article with error here: http://www.smh.com.au/business/macaus-seedy-casino-war-turns-to-gold-20090921-fyn5.html
and the correct Age article here: http://www.theage.com.au/business/hard-men-reign-in-packers-dream-city-20090921-fym8.html
Monday, September 21, 2009
SMH homophones?
In this article, the journalist has confused the homophones “two” and “to”. If you grow up speaking English this mistake is a real no-no.
The “the high cost of connecting two lines” should of course be “the high cost of connecting to lines” – unless the journalist meant something completely different in which case the whole sentence should have been written differently. Sigh. It shouldn’t be this hard to read the paper.
This is at the very least rather
Read it for yourself here: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/george-in-a-spin-over-noisy-wind-power-x2026-20090920-fwsl.html
The “the high cost of connecting two lines” should of course be “the high cost of connecting to lines” – unless the journalist meant something completely different in which case the whole sentence should have been written differently. Sigh. It shouldn’t be this hard to read the paper.
This is at the very least rather
Read it for yourself here: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/george-in-a-spin-over-noisy-wind-power-x2026-20090920-fwsl.html
Sunday, September 20, 2009
SMH Plural Misuse
This article by SMH reports that “Her skins and nails returned” in reference to the woman’s own skin and fingernails.
Like fingernails on a blackboard that’s a jarring example of English-as-a-second-language mistake. Unless talking about a hunter or a lizard, a native English speaker wouldn’t refer to skins in the plural.
This is:
Read it for yourself here: http://www.smh.com.au/world/out-of-the-darkness-after-nine-long-years-20090919-fw4s.html
Like fingernails on a blackboard that’s a jarring example of English-as-a-second-language mistake. Unless talking about a hunter or a lizard, a native English speaker wouldn’t refer to skins in the plural.
This is:
Read it for yourself here: http://www.smh.com.au/world/out-of-the-darkness-after-nine-long-years-20090919-fw4s.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
