Do news organizations proof read?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    News Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proofreading practices of news organizations, particularly in light of recent errors observed in articles from reputable sources. Participants explore the implications of these errors and question the overall quality of journalism in the current media landscape.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a specific article with a significant error in the headline, questioning whether news organizations proofread their content.
  • Another participant suggests that the decline in staff and quality is a strategy to address shrinking readership, implying a connection between resources and editorial standards.
  • A participant humorously asserts that news organizations do not proofread, providing a short and long answer to emphasize their point.
  • One participant challenges the assumption that the error indicates a lack of proofreading, suggesting that spellcheckers may have contributed to the confusion between "million" and "billion."
  • A historical anecdote is shared about a legendary proofreading error in the Thomas Old Farmer's Almanac, illustrating that proofreading issues are not a new phenomenon.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between proofreading and spellchecking, expressing frustration with the current state of news organizations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the proofreading practices of news organizations, with no consensus reached on the effectiveness or reliability of these practices. Some participants believe that errors are indicative of broader issues in journalism, while others offer alternative explanations.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference both contemporary and historical examples of proofreading issues, indicating that such problems may be systemic rather than isolated incidents. The discussion reflects a variety of perspectives on the role of technology in proofreading and the impact of resource allocation on journalistic quality.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


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


Do news organizations proof read??

Short answer: no.
Long answer: nope.
 


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.

:devil:
 


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.
 
Last edited:


WARGLEWARGLEWARGLE! Proofread =/= Spellcheck.

Sometimes I want to penguin poop on news organizations.
 

Similar threads

Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) - dangerous plant
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
What colors and attributes could alien flora & fauna have?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Chimp Genome Released: NHGRI-led Project Aligns Sequence With Human Genome
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K