Letters: Headline error leaves bad impression

The headline on the lead story of Sunday’s Advocate Nov. 18 caught my eye — but not in a good way. It read: “Firms question crime rate” on the top line and continued below with, “Concerns growing for local businesses, perspective companies.”

I could not make sense of the second line and reread it, thinking perhaps I had overlooked something or misread the words. But as I read again and then glanced through the article, the reason for my confusion became apparent. The word “perspective” should have been “prospective.”

Perhaps a last-minute change had to be made to the paper which resulted in the error, or maybe a typesetter accidentally keyed in the wrong word. Still, proofreading is an important step in the writing process, and not even a looming deadline should allow an error of this sort to slip through.

I have noticed errors in the Advocate before, though rarely, and the staff normally does a great job in the use of language. However, to have such an error appear on the front page of the paper does not leave a favorable impression.

Grady Noland

English instructor

Prairieville

Comments

1) Comment by bourbon-soda - 24/11/2012

A spellchecker would probably not have caught "perspective. It is a correctly spelled misused word.

2) Comment by Cousin Dave - 24/11/2012

Grady, Most of the errors in the Advocate aren't grammarical mistakes in the headlines, but factual errors in the articles themselves. But consider this -- as I undertand it, the people who write the headlines are the ones who are supposed to be correcting the errors in the articles. Now that's scarey.

3) Comment by Bouncer - 24/11/2012

I disagree with misterfalcon. The writer of the letter does not "condemn a spelling error as a grammar mistake." In fact, the writer does not use the word "grammar" at all in his letter, and nowhere in the letter does he remotely suggest that the mistake in usage is a "grammatical" error. In addition, there is not a single "run-on" sentence in his letter. If you're going to criticize someone's writing, at least check your own reading comprehension skills, and do not accuse the writer of making errors that simply are not in the letter. Using big words like "solipsism, solecism, and schism" cannot disguise the fact that you have simply misanalyzed and misread Mr. Noland's letter.

4) Comment by misterfalcon - 24/11/2012

Only in America would someone condemn a spelling error as a grammar mistake in a letter-to-the-editor filled with run-on sentences. In all likelihood the spell checking software is what caused the error. Why is the Advocate relying on spell checking software? The industry has fired most of its copy editors. The grammar school writing process that he complains about has never been part of the journalistic process. Copy created by reporters and desk writers is assumed to be wormy with errors. It's then (or was) filed with the copy desk who would hammer out the grammar and spelling, passing back notes to reporters and writers whose role it is to check the facts -- not the participles. Now that they're gone, who will stand at the gates to defend against barbarisms, solipsism, solecism, and schism? Who I ask you! WHOOO! Never fear! The NYTimes, The Post, The Tribune are all producing similar and worse mistakes on a daily basis for similar reasons. As for those children (think of the children!) whose minds are being warped by Bill Gate's legacy. Their innocent understanding of subject-verb agreement is safe; none of them read the paper.

5) Comment by twinkie1cat - 24/11/2012

I too have noticed quite a few grammatical errors in the Advocate, although they are not as severe as in some of the smaller papers. Some of the TV news reports are pretty bad also. I want to attribute this to a lack of teaching grammar and spelling in the schools, substituting instead, test preparation. Plus, those topics are difficult to make exciting or even interesting. The Advocate is frequently used in the classroom, however. Therefore, being as grammatically correct in order to set a good example for children is important and the Advocate needs to either hire some proofreaders or get some good proofreading software.

6) Comment by bourbon-soda - 24/11/2012

The headline itself should probably have read something like "firms wary of crime rate." The article did not seem to say that anyone was questioning the crime rate.

7) Comment by Bighug - 24/11/2012

Congratulations to the writer for this letter, and to the Advocate for printing it. I also was amazed at such a glaring error on the front page and commented on it.