Can journalists spell? (Correction: can the Spelling Society write?)

March 9, 2010

no-excuses

There is a simple PR value to immaculate spelling – it means that you disseminate your message accurately. In journalism, too, good spelling is vital, for without it the journalist’s task – to report, observe and illumine – is undermined.

With these thoughts in mind, we commend a new online survey by the Spelling Society, in association with HoldtheFrontPage, to find out whether journalists’ spelling has got better or worse over the past decade. To take part, click this link.

However, much as we admire the survey, we cannot but admonish the Spelling Society for some of the content on its home page. It starts breezily enough:

The Spelling Society started in 1908 and has the aim of raising awareness of the problems caused by the irregularity of English spelling and to promote remedies to improve literacy. The Spelling Society publishes leaflets, newsletters, journals, books and bulletins to promote our aim. We also feature in the media on TV, on radio and in print.

So far, so good, though ‘aim’ ought really to be plural. But we are aghast at the split infinitive below:

A short list of the problems caused by the irregularity of English spelling starts with children being taught the alphabet and finding that it is a poor guide on how to reliably pronounce the written form or reproducing spoken words in writing.

The argument is weakened not merely by the split infinitive, but the blend of the infinitive form with the present participle. Oh dear. Next up we have:

This leads inevitably to poor results in other areas of learning, as without literacy competency, no child can master other subjects.

What is ‘literacy competency’? What’s wrong with ‘competent literacy’? Sadly, the downward spiral continues:

Apart from the loss in terms of peoples? working lives there are other costs associated with remedial classes, additional spelling classes, all of which would be better used in teaching other subjects in a world that requires a skilled and knowledgeable work force.

What is going on here? The language is clunky but worse is the rogue question mark, presumably doubling as an apostrophe. Trouble is, it’s not an apostrophe and its appearance is arguably just as bad, if not worse, than a misspelt word.

However, despite such apparently egregious errors we prefer not to castigate the Spelling Society too much. In the old days, there were fetters galore before writing appeared for public consumption. Now the nationals would prefer not to have subs on the payroll and every journalist is expected to be able to write, sub and publish his copy, sans scrutiny and free of mistakes. The Spelling Society’s website would appear to have evaded a third party check to ensure that all is as it should be, but these things happen. Indeed, we confess that even here, amid the emanations from the Swordplay labyrinth, the occasional error creeps in…

(Please tell us if you spot any. Sometimes we toil alone and go a little wordblind.)

 

One Response to “Can journalists spell? (Correction: can the Spelling Society write?)”

Posted by:
Memo to the Spelling Society (and Journalists): Must do better | Professional Services PR Firm on April 20, 2010 at 7:56 am

[...] It’s the home page of the Spelling Society – and it remains as poorly written as it was when we first encountered it. The verdict? Journalists aren’t the only ones who must do [...]

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

Good work by Rusbridger

February 10, 2012
scissors

The headline says it all: ‘Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger takes pay cut‘.

Dan Sabbagh’s piece says a bit more: said editor ‘emailed staff at the newspaper to say that his salary in the upcoming 2012-13 financial year will be £395,010, compared with £438,900 in the current financial year’.

Some voices say: ‘How worthy.’

Others opine: ‘Well, he would, wouldn’t he?’

But we say: good work by Mr Rusbridger. For the sake of the media’s survival, we hope that others in senior positions in the industry will follow suit.

Image of toolkit allegedly deployed by Alan Rusbridger courtesy of Flickr user LollyKnit.

From the inside of the maze, ethically outwards

February 9, 2012

Curious times in the media; strange days at The Times.

Would ‘Dacre Cards‘ – the system of licensing journalists proposed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have prevented the embarrassment now palpable at the Times over the NightJack story?

Times editor James Harding’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry seemed heartfelt and contrite, albeit that the paper’s former long-serving and much-respected lawyer, Alastair Brett, seems to have been, er, rather dropped in it. Clearly, mistakes were made with regard to NightJack by young reporter Patrick Foster who, once he had hacked into NightJack’s account and thus discovered his identity, then embarked on a quest to expose it via legitimate methods. This, as Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC put it, was “rather like working from the inside of the maze out”.

But had Foster been licensed via a Dacre Card, would this unsavoury episode in the Times’s history have been avoided?

We suspect not. A raft of laws were in existence at precisely the time when many News of the World journalists seemed to believe that they were entitled to hack any phone they liked. Those laws forbade them from doing so, and yet made no difference. Aside from the obvious objection to them – that they will squeeze out freelancers and citizen journalists – Dacre Cards would simply amount to something to circumvent.

What is really required is an ethical shake-up, from top to bottom. Society generally – not just journalists – needs a sense that some things are just plain wrong.

Supreme Court on Twitter

February 6, 2012

Something remarkable happened today. Yes, the Supreme Court launched its Twitter feed. It even has a Twitter policy, one of caveats, disclaimers and little by way of illumination but regardless: who would have thought that the successor body to the House of Lords would stoop to engage with the world of tweets, hashtags and retweets?

We look forward to the day when court business will be conducted via Twitter. Meantime, check out this link for an excellent blog on the Supreme Court.