#522

The Times, February 8, 2020

I see this error so often that it will soon be classified by dictionaries as correct. Maybe it already is. Let’s not bother with definitions, let’s just stick any old nonsense down. Let’s not use our wonderfully rich and varied language, let’s reduce it to a couple of thousand words for all occasions.

‘Begging the question’ is a very specific usage. Also known as a circular argument, it involves making a firm conclusion on the basis of an arguable proposition. For example: ‘Why did God make parasitic worms?’ This begs (or avoids) the question of whether God exists. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred the writer actually means to say ‘this raises/leads to the question . . .’ In this case the writer might have said: ‘ . . . making me wonder if they know something we don’t.’

#521

i newspaper, February 6, 2020

If I were a chief sub, and this had been sent to me, I would have been pretty cross. Without giving the new membership rates, the increases mentioned are meaningless. I suppose given that the prices are going up by 6 per cent and this will mean an extra £7.80 a year on a joint membership, a reader could do some mental arithmetic or get out the  calculator. It is true that the National Trust press release and its website carefully conceals the new rates, but let me introduce a concept which is clearly unknown to many reporters and subs these days – asking a question. Surprising as it may seem, not every story arrives fully formed with every detail in the right place, especially if it is bearing bad tidings such as a price increase. It did not take me long to contact the NT and find out that the new joint membership rate from March 1 is £127.80 a year.

#519

The Times, January 23, 2020

I recommend using the spellcheck before sending a piece because it will pick up typographical errors (which we used to call literals, but now seem to be called typos). However the spellcheck is not a brain and cannot pick up stupid errors like this. I am assuming this is an oversight and that the Times sub does not really think this is how you write ‘bare their teeth’. However it demonstrates that you still have to read every word if you want to avoid looking like an idiot.

#518

Sunday Times, January 19, 2020

Only mid-January and already a cracking entry for the worst intro of the year. Precisely where may one find the controversy rankings of the world’s coal? It must be a fascinating list.

In any case the ‘It/and’ format is beyond tired. Just tell it straight by chopping off the first sentence. You can lose ‘new’ – the idea is incorporated in ‘revealed’.

Furthermore, I don’t think anyone claiming to be an impartial reporter (as news reporters should be, conveying facts, not opinions) should write that ‘coal is a key factor in climate change, which has exacerbated [Australia’s] drought and bushfires’. Whatever your personal beliefs, you need to qualify any contentious statement, even if only by saying ‘coal is said to be . . .’

It is pretty lame, as in the third par, to say that the coal ‘may have one of the worst carbon footprints . . .’ If you don’t know, don’t guess. It makes you look ignorant.

Otherwise, good job.

 

#517

i newspaper, January 17, 2020

Au revoir means ‘Until I see you again’ or ‘See you soon’.  The French word for a permanent farewell, as needed here, is ‘Adieu’. This is a     rotten headline in another way too, because it is simply a short form of the intro. Talking of the intro, you rarely need ‘ever’. ‘Last day’ is          sufficient.

A better headline might be:

Goodbye to all that: Euro
MPs’ historic Brexit day

which also has the advantage of not having the killer words ‘European Parliament’ in it.

One thing that annoys me about the i newspaper is its style of having a one-word tag above the headline. At least get it right – this story is about Strasbourg, not Brussels.

 

 

 

#516

The Times, January 10, 2020, page 8

The Times, January 10, 2020, page 10

This is more of an organisational point than subbing. When you have multiple stories on the same topic, as with the ‘abdication’ of Harry and Meghan, it is essential to deploy someone to make sure that figures are  consistent. In the first cutting here, Prince Harry is estimated to be worth £10million plus interest. In the second, based on the same two legacies, the figure is £30million. An overseer would be able to rule on which figure should be the one used throughout.

#514

The Times, December 30, 2019

This is an example of the lack of curiosity that I feel infects today’s subs. As a reader, I see the words: ‘The Prince of Wales was the hardest-working, attending 521 functions. This was more than his sister, the Princess Royal, who is historically the most industrious’ and I think: ‘Hmm, that’s interesting, I wonder how many more?’ I have to wait for two more paragraphs and into the second leg before I am told that Anne carried out 506 engagements. I then have to subtract 506 from 521 to come up with the answer: 15. I find this irritating.

The sub should always imagine being the reader and predict what the reader is going to want to know next. The sub should also never make the reader do mental arithmetic. In this case, the second paragraph should have read: ‘The Prince of Wales was the hardest-working, attending 521 functions. This was 15 more than his sister, the Princess Royal, who is historically the most industrious. Her 2019 total was 506.’

I question whether 15 engagements in a tally of more than 500 constitutes an ‘eclipse’. Granted, eclipses can be partial, but the average reader will envisage a total eclipse, which is far from what the story says. A better word would be ‘replaces’.

 

 

#513

The Times, December 26, 2019

The word ‘local’ is nearly always superfluous, eg ‘He took the dog to a local vet’ (not a vet 200 miles away). This is a particularly egregious example. Local to what? Delete it. Incidentally, I would say ‘passers-by’ with a hyphen.