(no subject)
Oct. 11th, 2009 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deathboyAND ANOTHER THING.
Why the fuck do the BBC and the Guardian now feel the inescapable urge to bookend pieces with fucking quotes from anonymous text-speaking fuckwits?
Joanne Bloomer wrote: "RIP Stephen. Very sad. U were a true talent!"
Not enough to make you press three fucking buttons to spell a word correctly, though, eh, Ms Bloomer? Probably a bit too much effort to go to in between feeding another bacardi breezer to your seventh child while you stuff another B&H into your blackened maw.
Instead of spending 5 seconds pulling a quote off a message board or twitter to desperately appear to be relevant in this modern age of democratised communication, would it not suffice to simply say "As you can imagine, legions of educationally sub-normal chav cunts were disproportionally gutted about the whole thing"?
I notice such missives are immune to the "[sic]" marker, despite them applying it to Stephen Fry's spelling error. So we just culturally fucking expect these moronic cunts to lack basic communications skills? They just get a free pass, do they?
Fuck off!
And bring me some fucking fruit juice and ibuprofen, or somebody's going to get hurt.
Why the fuck do the BBC and the Guardian now feel the inescapable urge to bookend pieces with fucking quotes from anonymous text-speaking fuckwits?
Joanne Bloomer wrote: "RIP Stephen. Very sad. U were a true talent!"
Not enough to make you press three fucking buttons to spell a word correctly, though, eh, Ms Bloomer? Probably a bit too much effort to go to in between feeding another bacardi breezer to your seventh child while you stuff another B&H into your blackened maw.
Instead of spending 5 seconds pulling a quote off a message board or twitter to desperately appear to be relevant in this modern age of democratised communication, would it not suffice to simply say "As you can imagine, legions of educationally sub-normal chav cunts were disproportionally gutted about the whole thing"?
I notice such missives are immune to the "[sic]" marker, despite them applying it to Stephen Fry's spelling error. So we just culturally fucking expect these moronic cunts to lack basic communications skills? They just get a free pass, do they?
Fuck off!
And bring me some fucking fruit juice and ibuprofen, or somebody's going to get hurt.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 01:02 pm (UTC)And can I make that order for juice & drugs twice?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-11 04:01 pm (UTC)Compare The Mirror and The Telegraph - I love how the articles are basically the same, but with subtle word changes here and there. Reminds me of copying out of a book for homework, but making trivial word changes to make it "in our own words" :) Which is all very well, until there's false information propagated.
(It looks like the Guardian were also at it, but they seem to have updated the article now.)
Which quote had the "sic" on it? I see that there are many articles that reported Stephen Gately's last Twitter with a "sic" - e.g., "still busy - lots going on. Focussing (sic) on finishing my book next so may be quiet here." But in fact - "focussing" is an acceptable spelling! [*]
Most stories seem to be updating this now, but there were plenty that had it, including the BBC. News Sniffer shows them correcting it (and their slideshow still shows it). Curiously, at least one site has decided instead to "correct" the spelling, to "focusing".
[*] I wasn't aware of this either, but a trivial Google confirms it, as does the OED. Even Microsoft Word spell checker accepts it. Obviously it's a bit too much to expect a journalist to know the English language, or how to do some trivial research...