| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
THOSE EAGLE-EYED EDITORS AT REUTERS let an amusing error through today:
Grass opposed the reunifaction of Germany in 1990, arguing that the country would be in danger of reverting to its role as a war-mongerer.
The word is not "war-mongerer." The word is "warmonger." (The misspelling used by Reuters is not unknown.)
Not only that, the word "reunifaction" is misspelled as well. The correct spelling, of course, is reunification. (Again the misspelling used by Reuters is not unknown).
The absence of proper spelling casts additional doubt on Reuters' claims of editorial infallibility.
#1
#2Ruth, that's not the point. If the editor's can't pick up on the most blatant errors, it casts more doubt on their talents to pick the less blatant ones.
-OC
#3Vik said that Reuters has claimed editorial infallibility.
If Reuters has in fact never made any such claim, what does that tell you about Vik's credibility?
#4Well, why don't tell me if Reuters has ever made such a claim? Please provide sources.
The point being that it doesn't really matter. Reuters' policies state that they pride themselves of having the highest standards of journalism and that they have extremely experienced and seasoned editors checking each and every story and photograph that comes in. If these "experienced and seasoned" editors can't pick up the most blatant errors, then there's something serious wrong with the organization. Either, sloppy or poor journalism is being practiced, at best, or biased journalism is going on, at worst. Either one does not leave me with much trust for that news organization.
-OC
#5Well, why don’t tell me if Reuters has ever made such a claim? Please provide sources.
That question should be addressed to Vik. It was he who said Reuters has claimed editorial infallibility.
#6No news agency is 'infallible', that's why there are corrections to almost every story!
My favorite public high school teacher warned us while we were learning how to research, to go the extra mile and seek out errors and corrections in subsequent newspapers, and magazines; inevitably, they will exist. In fact, no matter how good the content of the paper was, if one did not follow the accepted rules of grammatically correct English, one lost points. Dr. Meade's red pencil was legendary!
However, as Vik has pointed out, now Reuters has become lax and sloppy in this area as well the photo debacle.
There was a time when one could read a news story and find the highest standard of language. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult, even for me, to write and speak properly since many of the printed and spoken resources are employing substandard English through incorrect agreement, syntax, spelling, grammar, words, and terms. Most of it is the result of constant exposure to the speech patterns of the general public, television, the internet, and now, print journalism.
Reuters is reinforcing the vulgate.
No wonder our children are having problems communicating; they have such poor role models!
Getting back to Reuters:
I used to believe that Reuters was the gold standard of responsible news gathering, but I now view every story and news photo with a 'second eye'. I shouldn't have to act as reader and editor!
It is ironic that in this electronic age of mass communication, increased accessibility, and velocity, news agencies are manipulating the public by both duping and 'dumbing down', rather than enlightening.
I've become cynical; I now trust my gut instinct above all else.
Here is Reuters editorial policy:
P.S. I'm sure this reply would have fallen victim to Dr. Meade's red pencil!
The absence of proper spelling casts additional doubt on Reuters' claims of editorial infallibility.
When did Reuters claim editorial infallibility?