I guess pro journalists suck at spellchecker too.

[awaag]

What’s more amusing?

The mistake was made by a national news service.

OR

It’s over a week later, the mistake was pointed out in the first comment on the article, and the mistake is still there!!

[Colophon]

@Amateur_Barbarian

Not a luxury. A commodity. The once-great Hartford Courant **has **copyeditors… in Chicago. They’re okay at all that Englishing stuff, but they don’t know streets from towns from parks from public figures, so absurdities abound.

I am one of that dying breed, and I can tell you that a few years ago one British national daily was seriously considering outsourcing its subbing to Australia - or possibly the Philippines, depending on whom you believe.

Generally, print newspapers (at least in the UK) still pride themselves on good editing, but for some reason online stories are generally thrown up as fast as possible, often with no editing at all.

(And the BBC subtitle blunder is not really in the same league, as those subtitles are produced using phonetic stenography-style keyboards, on the fly.)

[Amateur_Barbarian]

@Ranger_Jeff

A friend of mine once had a neighbor who was a Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service. This was years before 9/11. He wasn’t on the Presidential Productive Detail. One day he showed us what was in the trunk of his company car.

:eek:

One does not want to fuck with the USSS.

Envisioning the trunk scenes from Repo Man here.

[Icarus]

@Ranger_Jeff

A friend of mine once had a neighbor who was a Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service. This was years before 9/11. He wasn’t on the Presidential Productive Detail.

…as long as we’re gettin’ all editor-y here…

Presidential Productive(?) Detail

Do you mean Presidential Protective Detail?

[SpoilerVirgin]

I heard a presenter (definitely not a professional journalist, though) mention the “NASA spatial station” yesterday.