What's new

Life expectancy has nearly doubled "since the start of the 21st Century"

Another gem from that bastion of journalistic excellence, the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23411975 said:


How hard is it to tell which century is which?

Sorry for banging on about this kind of thing, but I see schoolboy errors like this all the time. It just seems that nobody cares about getting details right any more. The BBC has become one of the worst offenders over the last few years. I'm sure it's because of their recruitment policies trying to favour those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Which is fine - but not when done at the expense of basic competence.

/end rant.
 
??????????????????????????????????????
Since the meaning of my comment may not be clear...
In the UK, organisations are now pressured into giving preferential treatment to "the disadvantaged." They are being portrayed as evil if they do not do so.
For example, people from poor backgrounds are let into university with lower exam grades.
The BBC is a strong proponent of such "positive" discrimination.

The link is still fine for me, maybe it's blocked internationally. But I quoted the relevant line above. I just emboldened the glaring error, which would not have been made by any intelligent, well educated person who should be in that job position.
And, repeating myself, this is becoming more common. Not just on their website, the news-ticker on their news channel is littered with mistakes.

Edit> While the BBC is not unique in having declining standards, I find their case especially sad. They are publicly funded (via the TV licence fee) and in return are expected to maintain high standards by adhering to their charter. Until recent years, I think they were doing well at this.
 
Last edited:

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
I think the problem goes beyond "disadvantaged hiring preferences" ...

There seems to be far too little emphasis in accuracy and grammar in education in general, on critical thinking and knowing (for example) which century the "twenty-first" is. Heck, if you want to be really pedantic (and I do!!) "1800s" should not be seen as synonymous with "nineteenth century" but rather as indicating the first decade of that century. (Then it's the 1810's, the 1820's, the 1830's, and so forth.) IMHO the "Beeb" and other news organisations tend to focus on making their announcers and publications "sound like real people" rather than setting an example the way they did decades ago.

But yes, I'd be surprised if life expectancy didn't double between 1809 and 2001.

:001_rolle
 
It is funny that you say this and I know people over here that say, well if you want good quality news I go read the BBC. I get a laugh every time they say it.
 
The only news publication that I have ever found free of an extreme amount of errors is The Economist. I took a class once where we had to pick out articles to rewrite in correct English. The Economist was the only publication that we were not allowed to use.
 

Doc4

Stumpy in cold weather
Staff member
You should see the grammar/sytactical/pronunciation errors in our local news media outlets-it's downright embarrassing.

I once was reading a local (free) newspaper while waiting in a sushi restaurant during one of my travels (not a necessary detail, but interesting colour and hopefully explains why I was reading the paper in question.) I was reading a story about the local hydro-electric authority having to implement a new programme. I came across this gem at the end of a sentence describing how the old thing being replaced had started wearing out faster than expected:

... thus making it was merely essential that BC Hydro inhibited the plan.

I tried not to laugh too loud, and wrote that gem down for posterity.
 
The other error in that article is that life expectancy hasn't so much doubled as infant mortality has decreased thus increasing the averrage length of time one has to live.
 
Top Bottom