DaithiMa wrote: » It is all down to spellcheck. So called writers/journalists just use it and don't bother re-reading what they have written. Pure laziness.
Motivator wrote: » Most of the time these online “articles” are written by interns or people in junior positions in the company. Given their positions in the company, they’re most likely early twenty-somethings who have grown up in the social media and whatsapp age where a basic grasp on grammar is non existent. The attached article was probably passed up to some coffee drinking, vaping moron who saw a beginning, a middle and an end and gave it the thumbs up. The articles on the independent.ie app are just as bad as this to be honest. Words missing, quotation marks missing etc.
Motivator wrote: » The attached article was probably passed up to some coffee drinking, vaping moron who saw a beginning, a middle and an end and gave it the thumbs up. The articles on the independent.ie app are just as bad as this to be honest. Words missing, quotation marks missing etc.
jimbobaloobob wrote: » This is terrible to read. Does proof reading taking place anymore ?http://theliberal.ie/noel-edmonds-calls-out-rte-after-they-firstly-remove-then-heavily-edit-his-incredible-interview-on-rte-player/
AllForIt wrote: » Too much emphasis on commas and not enough on single inverted commas.
Irish Guitarist wrote: » Out of the many United Kingdoms the one Noel Edmonds is from is indeed one of the best.
Undividual wrote: » Godwin's Grammatical Law
SHOVELLER wrote: » A bugbear of mine forever. Absolutely no excuses anymore for spelling and grammatical errors given the software available. It shows a disrespect for the readers and yet the media complain why we, the audience, dont buy their product.
Edmonds is one of the best UK’s best entertainers, watched by multi millions during the 80s and 90s and then again with Deal or No Deal in the 10s.
sk8erboii wrote: » Hm
Undividual wrote: » Hm
sk8erboii
Douglas Shapely Stowaway wrote: » Definitely dropped. Some woeful errors commonplace now. Now you will be told you're a grammar Nazi etc (as is part of the current reverse snobbery fashion) but criticism of sloppy, careless writing in a professional capacity is not grammar Nazism (ridiculing someone who has difficulty writing in a casual setting is) and there's nothing wrong with preferring a better standard in that regard.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » With the level of grammar among the general public, it's a wonder anyone would notice it being bad in the press. Whole words are being made redundant , "being" being one of them,