Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Oopsie-Beebs-a-blog™: Also submerged underwater too? (fixed)

wetbeeb (inarticulate howls of protest fading out into sobbing …)

Look, is it just me or is there something horribly wrong with this sentence?

A car was also submerged underwater too, he added

It comes from the Beeb’s news story Canal leak floods family's home. I mean, if that’s good writing, then is this one better?

Additionally, a car was also submerged underwater by immersion too, he added

- (three-all, yes!) and presumably this is even nicer – nicer, indeed, than bunny-wunnies:

Additionally, a car furthermore was also submerged underwater by immersion in the flood too, he added

- and so on. 4-4! Why stop there? I could go for 5-5 you know …

Go on, then, answer the question – is it just me? I mean, I think it’s terrible writing and it troubles me that no-one looked at it before announcing it to a squillion people, because I think the Beeb should be a champion of good writing and careful editing. But hey: YMMV.


Becca said...

Nope, very much not just you. Although we are both most amused by the entry.

PS I got Figaro pissed on Baileys this evening. Oops.

Strawberryyog said...

Thank you, you BAD CAT MOTHER you xxxxx

Strawberryyog said...

Come to think of it, he's rowdy enough when he's NOT p*ssed - what on earth was he like after hitting the Baileys?? Or did he just go and sleep it off?

Becca said...

He rolled around on the bed purring a lot and drooling slightly*, blinked and waved a paw vaguely at the straw (his current favourite toy) and then fell asleep upside down.

*it's normal for very content cats to drool a bit.

Strawberryyog said...

Ha! Well if he's like that on Baileys I reckon you should probably keep him off both the port and the sweet sherry this Christmas! xxxxx

Strawberryyog said...

I should add that Auntie, bless her, amended the offending line to read, "A car was also submerged, he added". I would hate to claim this was a result of my whinging, but it has made me feel a little better ...

Phishfoodice said...

I've just stumbled across your blog. Very amused by Becca's use of "both" here. I'm sure she underestimates the number of readers :p

I didn't come on here to read about the beeb website mistakes, I came on to find out what hyperpuff meant... do you KNOW what hyperpuff means? Or were you just mentioning it in that it's a random word to havein a url?

Incidentally, and I in no way mean to patronise (and I hate to say it but) but, I do think that on this occasion it was a slip of the finger. I'm sure you must have paused to daydream mid-sentence before and subsequently repeated/fudged up something in said sentence.

Just a thought. Cheerio!

Strawberryyog said...

Hi Phishfoodice and thank you so much for taking the time to comment. It's greatly appreciated.

On the hyperpuff thing, the nice BBC editor mentioned in my piece about it did say that they were just some kind of system labels that weren't meant for public consumption but occasionally escaped. I don't think that he went into further details about exactly what they mean, but if I find the email again (unlikely, to be honest) I will check, and will post here again if there is any more information than that.

Thanks also for your comment on the Beeb's making of mistakes. Sure, I agree that it's just a slip of the finger and that we all make mistakes. In fact, I think I cover that a bit in this blog, not least in that same piece - the paragraph that begins "The Beeb's News site is a wonderful place ..." refers to this.

My problem, though, is that I think they really make quite a lot of mistakes, but are - mostly rightly - seen as a centre of excellence in reporting: I think that, yes, they should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us. After all, if I make stupid mistakes on this blog then maybe a dozen people will read them, on a good day; if the Beeb does then I guess their readership is a bit larger.

I suppose I feel that what the BBC publishes is of national significance, and it disturbs me to see things that, sure, were just careless slips from the author, but that don't seem to have been picked up by anyone else - is there no oversight, I wonder? Of course it doesn't really matter in the cosmic scheme of things if the BBC misuses "their" and "there" and "its" and "it's" and (this morning) can't see the difference between "lose" and "loose". Or if it doesn't know, or bother to find out, the difference between a gong and a cymbal. It's just a bit sad, is all, and in an organization which occupies their particular position, I'd love to see (even) more care taken.

Thanks again for your very welcome comments - please do pop in again.