Do news organizations proof read?

[Pengwuino]

Do news organizations proof read??

So I just noticed this article pop up on google for my city's news section.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/02/16/2276007/county-ponders-cuts-to-close-31.html

Fresno County administrators announced Wednesday the county will need to cut costs to close a $31 million gap in next year's budget.

However, unless they change it by the time you read this thread, the headline currently says "County ponders cuts to close $31 billion gap". Honestly, do news organizations proof read anymore?? Lately I've been seeing countless numbers of articles with little to no proof reading apparently done. And these aren't just silly blogs or small internet "news organizations", I'm seeing Washington post, Wall street journal, even the LA and NY Times putting out articles which didn't seem to be fully proof read. Is this the effects of the decline of traditional media? Or the end of the human race as we know it?

DISCUSS!

 

[Algr]

Still broken as of this post. They figure less staff and lower quality is the way to reverse a shrinking readership.

 

[caffenta]

Do news organizations proof read??

Short answer: no.
Long answer: nope.

 

[BobG]

What makes you think they didn't check it? According to spell checker, both "million" and "billion" are acceptable. I'd just blame it on a glitch in the Microsoft Word spellchecker if I were them.

 

[BobG]

Proof reading problems aren't unique to the present day, by the way.

One of the most famous legends about the Thomas Old Farmer's Almanac was that it predicted snow for July 13, 1816. Evidently, July 13th was left out of the original predictions and the proof reader was left with a dilemma. Leaving the date out completely would affect the typeset for that page and all subsequent pages, meaning the error couldn't be corrected. Holding up the typesetting for one error was unacceptable, as well, since then they would fall behind schedule and never get the book out on time. So, the proof reader put in a forecast so bizarre ("Snow, rain, and hail") that someone would notice and the correct forecast for that date could be substituted by correcting just one page of typeset instead of affecting the entire book. Except no one noticed and the book wound up being printed with the bizarre forecast. And, thanks to the volcanic eruption of Mount Tamora, 1816 was an incredibly cold summer and it actually did snow on July 13th!

Of course, the problem with the legend is that you can't actually find any copies with that forecast in it. No problem, since the legend was then modified so that Thomas discovered the error after the first batch was printed and delivered and a corrected version was published in its place. So, as a result, the copies of the Farmer's Almanac that predicted snow are just rare.

Still, the legend does illustrate that bad proofreading seemed believable enough to make the legend plausible even back in the day.

And if proof reading (or its equivalent) ever been particularly error-free, then the life of stamp collectors would be a lot more boring.

 

[Pengwuino]

WARGLEWARGLEWARGLE! Proofread =/= Spellcheck.

Sometimes I want to penguin poop on news organizations.