My best friend suggested I start a Tumblr about all the mistakes I come across because he thinks it’s hilarious how annoyed I get. If I did such a thing, I would never leave the Internet or get out of my pyjamas because I would become totally obsessed with documenting all the mistakes everywhere.
Instead, I’ll just post some every once in a while. Maybe they’ll lead you to read a story you may have missed or introduce you to a new site that may have better writers on staff. Maybe you’ll just commiserate with me about What The World Is Coming To and we can all go back to lamenting the Good Old Days.
⇒ NYT: “can add” or “can offer.” This is clearly a mistake in the proofreading. It was written one way, edited to be the other and no one went back to make sure it still worked. ♦
⇒ The Hollywood Reporter falls victim to one of the common mistakes. The way to check for these is SO EASY. Replace “there” with “here.” If it kind of makes sense, it’s okay. If it doesn’t, replace with “his / her.” If that works, “their” is right. If you can’t deal with contractions (“they’re”), go out behind the building and throw yourself in a dumpster because you are garbage. ♦
⇒ Tell me, Washington Post: is it Panisse (highlighted) or Pannise (just below)? (Hint: you were right the first time.) ♦
⇒ Hello, Washington Post? Is anybody there? Sentences that begin question word + auxiliary verb + subject + verb are, in fact, questions. These types of sentences end with, you know, an interrogative mark and not a space and then a close quote. ♦
⇒ And a story about how Entertainment Weekly is moving to unpaid user-generated content offers insight into why this kind of non-existent editing will become more common in the future. It turns out that how quickly EW can implement this new idea will be partly based on how much money it’s going to cost them to automate editing. Because who needs humans? ♦