Telegraph corrections. Do they check before publishing?
Discussion
Found this https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/telegraph-corre... and it's not like they are making the odd error here or there.
Are other publications as inaccurate on publishing their stories?
Are other publications as inaccurate on publishing their stories?
vaud said:
The Guardian is nicknamed The Grunuad by Private Eye.
I once sent a polite email for a very obvious correction to The Grunuad and questioned if they even scan read before publication and I got a curt email saying it was very hard being a subeditor in this day and age…
Grauniad. Better proof-reading needed... I once sent a polite email for a very obvious correction to The Grunuad and questioned if they even scan read before publication and I got a curt email saying it was very hard being a subeditor in this day and age…
When I started in (magazine) publishing, the sub-editing depts were huge and staffed with highly diligent (if a little odd) people. They also had a veritable library's worth of reference books to check facts from.
Quite soon after I started the internet replaced those books.
Then these depts were the first to be hit by redundancies as circulations dropped and ad revenue fell.
Then, senior management (who increasingly were from non-editorial backgrounds) decided it was a spiffing idea to have writers sub their own copy, and effectively removed any remaining qualified subs, barring a few who became production controllers.
I left at this point.
Quite soon after I started the internet replaced those books.
Then these depts were the first to be hit by redundancies as circulations dropped and ad revenue fell.
Then, senior management (who increasingly were from non-editorial backgrounds) decided it was a spiffing idea to have writers sub their own copy, and effectively removed any remaining qualified subs, barring a few who became production controllers.
I left at this point.
I can only see the top three examples (before the wall comes up!) but they're all of a social conservatism, red-meat type; also as if they're happy "tweak" the reader in the main article space, whilst recanting in what is the newspaper equivalent of a forgotten backroom.
Maybe coincidence, maybe everyone does it...
Maybe coincidence, maybe everyone does it...
AmyRichardson said:
Maybe coincidence, maybe everyone does it...
My wife works in comms and spends the main part of her day dealing with journalists - they all do it - starting with an editorial position and then trying to somehow make the facts fit even if they spectacularly miss the overall point of the story. If anything, I think the Guardian and Channel 4 news are even worse than the Mail and Telegraph.
vaud said:
Snow and Rocks said:
If anything, I think the Guardian and Channel 4 news are even worse than the Mail and Telegraph.
True, but I think the Guardian is one of the few papers to invest in investigative journalism, which is a dying art.vaud said:
Snow and Rocks said:
If anything, I think the Guardian and Channel 4 news are even worse than the Mail and Telegraph.
True, but I think the Guardian is one of the few papers to invest in investigative journalism, which is a dying art.It is also one of the few (maybe only) news website that details any corrections made to stories, so that changes are transparent
boyse7en said:
I think the Guardian is excellent for news and journalism, but its opinion piece writers and columnists are largely idiots.
It is also one of the few (maybe only) news website that details any corrections made to stories, so that changes are transparent
I have recent experience of submitting a request for a correction to them. I'm not a subscriber but the corrections desk dude (David) read and explained the article (which I'd misread). I gave them a small donation for that.It is also one of the few (maybe only) news website that details any corrections made to stories, so that changes are transparent
The purpose of a misleading article or, particularly, headline is served by publishing it. Who reads the Corrections column?
Re: the Guardian; it treats journalism with a seriousness that is less apparent in many other papers. Rusbridger's book, Breaking News, is well worth reading to appreciate the systems they worked under. I think the 'Eye' picked up on misspellings and poor sub-editing (rather ironic now given they, at least, have one) rather than poor fact-checking.
The MSM news outlets have large departments that fact-check, if only for legal reasons, hence the persistence of 'allegedly'. There might be a slip of the tongue - much of it Jeremy H's fault - during a broadcast, but in general, the compliance police rule.
Re: the Guardian; it treats journalism with a seriousness that is less apparent in many other papers. Rusbridger's book, Breaking News, is well worth reading to appreciate the systems they worked under. I think the 'Eye' picked up on misspellings and poor sub-editing (rather ironic now given they, at least, have one) rather than poor fact-checking.
The MSM news outlets have large departments that fact-check, if only for legal reasons, hence the persistence of 'allegedly'. There might be a slip of the tongue - much of it Jeremy H's fault - during a broadcast, but in general, the compliance police rule.
Edited by Derek Smith on Wednesday 12th February 18:35
littleredrooster said:
vaud said:
The Guardian is nicknamed The Grunuad by Private Eye.
I once sent a polite email for a very obvious correction to The Grunuad and questioned if they even scan read before publication and I got a curt email saying it was very hard being a subeditor in this day and age…
Grauniad. Better proof-reading needed... I once sent a polite email for a very obvious correction to The Grunuad and questioned if they even scan read before publication and I got a curt email saying it was very hard being a subeditor in this day and age…
Keep up at the back...No hyphen required! It's now proofreading (yeah, I know, I loathe it too) and been like this for a considerable while.
a) proof reading (spelt as 2 words)
b) proof-reading (hyphenated compound noun)
c) proofreading (closed compound spelling as 1 word)
The same goes for proof reader, proof-reader and now, proofreader.
It's all to do with stuff changing over the years.
Something begins as an open spelling as 2 words, then becomes an hyphenated compound noun, before ending up as a closed spelling ie: 1 word.
A great example of this evolution is the word: Today.
It began as the open 'To Day' – from Middle English times and prior to that Old English ‘To+Dœge’ which meant ‘On This Day’.
Then it became hyphenated To-Day, which was used for several hundred years.
Nowadays, of course, it is a closed spelling ‘Today’ that we use – the vast majority of people would never know it had changed.
To me (an old git, who began his career in print in the 60s and continued as a book publisher for 35 yrs) I prefer the hyphenated.
It doesn't mean you cannot hyphenate, but today you will be in a minority. The vast majority go with no hyphen.
Spelling is vastly important imo. Today, despite all the tech at every person's hand, constantly, daily, you can spot extremely simple errors.
I still recall the days, like at Oxford University Press, walking through a room of Monotype caster machines barely able to hear anything above the racket they made, and then into a room so quiet a pin could be heard to drop, of multiple proofreaders (sorry, proof-readers... oops, sorry, proof readers!) each meticulously checking work for any errors.
We even had our own OUP Hart's Rules (or 'bible').
A small hardback that would fit in your pocket. I still have mine from 1967, the 37th edition, completely revised.
Horace Hart, MA, Printer to the University, 1853-1915 is probably spinning relentlessly in his grave today.
NB: If there are any spelling or grammatical errors in the above, I don't care. Why should I? Nobody else does!
dandarez said:
Keep up at the back...No hyphen required! It's now proofreading (yeah, I know, I loathe it too) and been like this for a considerable while.
a) proof reading (spelt as 2 words)
b) proof-reading (hyphenated compound noun)
c) proofreading (closed compound spelling as 1 word)
The same goes for proof reader, proof-reader and now, proofreader.
It's all to do with stuff changing over the years.
Something begins as an open spelling as 2 words, then becomes an hyphenated compound noun, before ending up as a closed spelling ie: 1 word.
A great example of this evolution is the word: Today.
It began as the open 'To Day' – from Middle English times and prior to that Old English ‘To+Dœge’ which meant ‘On This Day’.
Then it became hyphenated To-Day, which was used for several hundred years.
Nowadays, of course, it is a closed spelling ‘Today’ that we use – the vast majority of people would never know it had changed.
To me (an old git, who began his career in print in the 60s and continued as a book publisher for 35 yrs) I prefer the hyphenated.
It doesn't mean you cannot hyphenate, but today you will be in a minority. The vast majority go with no hyphen.
Spelling is vastly important imo. Today, despite all the tech at every person's hand, constantly, daily, you can spot extremely simple errors.
I still recall the days, like at Oxford University Press, walking through a room of Monotype caster machines barely able to hear anything above the racket they made, and then into a room so quiet a pin could be heard to drop, of multiple proofreaders (sorry, proof-readers... oops, sorry, proof readers!) each meticulously checking work for any errors.
We even had our own OUP Hart's Rules (or 'bible').
A small hardback that would fit in your pocket. I still have mine from 1967, the 37th edition, completely revised.
Horace Hart, MA, Printer to the University, 1853-1915 is probably spinning relentlessly in his grave today.
NB: If there are any spelling or grammatical errors in the above, I don't care. Why should I? Nobody else does!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff