In his 1850 poem “The Builders”, H. Wads Longfellow (as Mark Twain called him) wrote:
In the elder days of Art,
Builders wrought with greatest care
Each minute and unseen part;
For the Gods see everywhere.
I obviously don’t mind sounding like a geezer and curmudgeon, because this article is to point out that the pride in a job well done championed in that “olde” poem seems to have gone the way of the passenger pigeon in many instances today.
One example of this that I often notice is how wretchedly printed items are edited and proofread. In some cases, it’s understandable (due to small budgets, minimal importance of the message, etc.), but when the mistakes just keep on occurring, and the people whose desk the buck stops at are employed by a large and wealthy corporation, it’s obviously a lack of will — or perhaps it’s greed — that is behind the problem.
I will show you a few examples of what I mean. Many of these are from “Apple News” (the news app that comes pre-installed on Apple devices), which is atrociously proofread (if at all); others are from various places — even once in a while the New York Times, of all sources. Without further ado, here they are (these are just a few I’ve collected in the last week or so):
“from the from the” Apple News, 9/21/22
“is the aggressor the war”? Do you mean “is the aggressor of the war” or…? Apple News 9/27/22
“everyone” should be “every one”
This is not “wrong,” but it’s too verbose. Thomas Jefferson recommended never using two words when one would suffice. How about using 14 when 10 or 11, or even six or eight, would suffice?
The article title ("Lion's D'Andre Swift Out 'Some Time' with shoulder injury, Could be out until week 7") could have and probably should have been: "Lion's D'Andre Swift could be out until week 7 with shoulder injury" or even, since this appeared after the week 3 game: "Lion's D'Andre Swift Could be out four weeks with shoulder injury."
You could even leave the first word out, as the picture tells you which team Swift plays for; after all, if a person can't tell he plays for the Lions, why would they be reading the article in the first place? So it could actually be: "D'Andre Swift could be out four weeks with shoulder injury" (10 words instead of 14), or even, “Swift out up to four weeks with injury” (eight words) or “Swift out for weeks with injury” (six words).
This one is a logic or math error. It should say, “more than quadrupled” rather than “more than tripled” since 93,000 X 4 = 372,000. Or perhaps “380,000” should actually read 280,000? In that case, it would be a fact-checking error.
This is a logic error, too, or a not-paying-attention-to-what-the-reader-is-really-asking problem — he’s wondering why Doubs wasn’t drafted earlier than the fourth round, not why didn’t the Packers draft him prior to the fourth round. In other words, why was his value not recognized by other teams? Was there a perceived problem with him was the question, not “Why didn’t the Packers draft him in the first, second, or third round?”
This is another one from Apple News, of 9/20/22 (“a top of”? I guess they meant “on top of” or, better yet, “ride atop”).
Addendum
This just in:
Was zum teufel ist hier los?!? Did something someone was writing about Terrell Owen, or Jesse Owen (or even Randy Owen) somehow get inserted into this article?
I'm guessing it's supposed to say this:
...and the Raiders are the only team in the NFL already having players-only meetings.
(note that it should be players-only, not "players only").
Is it really the case that nobody checks this stuff before it gets posted? As I said already, Was zum teufel ist hier los?!? ("What in tarnation is going on here?!?")
And by the way: yes, I am available as a proofreader (for pay, that is).