Nothing says ‘I don’t give a crap’ like umf

There’s lots of bad writing on the Internet, even by paid professionals. And when they don’t give a crap about their writing, you’ll likely see factual errors, misspellings, and incorrect word choices. That’s what I was thinking when I read this on Yahoo! Travel:

breakfast travel 1

This is allegedly about something called “Hearty Eggs,” but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s really about haggis. It’s clear the writer was a tad confused about her subject, just as she was confused about the difference between further and farther, the word that refers to real, physical distance.

But nothing says “I don’t give a sh*t” like umf, which I take to be a lazy writer’s attempt at oomph. Umf is not a word, but it is an abbreviation and according to the Urban Dictionary it means “ugly motherf***er,” which I don’t think the writer meant. Although if she reads this, she may be thinking that.

I gotta hand it to ‘em

I gotta hand it to the editors at Yahoo! Style— they commit the best typos in all of the Interwebs:

fist look style

Joan Rivers? Almost

The late Joan Rivers is a little less on the Yahoo! front page:

fp joan river

I hope that it’s just a typo and that the writer doesn’t think that the possessive of Rivers is River’s.

Awful timing for typo

It’s an awful time and place to misspell Heisman, but it’s not surprising that it’s on yahoo.com:

fp hesiman

I almost dozed off reading this

If the sleep aid for geeks involves a dose of Ambien, then maybe they’ll be dozing off sooner rather than later. Perhaps that’s what the writer for Yahoo! Movies took just before writing this:

dosing movies

Take a peak at this!

Take a peak at Yahoo! Style:

sneak peak style

No, really. Take a peak and replace it with a peek, because that’s the word that means “to glance quickly or peer furtively.”

Amongst your words, that is the most pretentious

The new site Yahoo! Style may be setting some records in the number and severity of errors that it displays every day. These errors from a recent article are among the most amateurish on the site:

font style 1

The word amongst is a synonym for among. Is it wrong? Not exactly, but it’s just not as common in the U.S. as it is in other English-speaking countries. And Americans aren’t all that fond of the word. The OxfordWords blog sums up the sentiment of many Americans:

[M]any authorities (such as Garner’s Modern American Usage) and language blogs state that, in US English, amongst is now seen as old-fashioned, and even ‘pretentious’. If you are a US English speaker, therefore, and you don’t want to come across to your audience as out of date or, heaven forbid, linguistically la-di-da, then it’s advisable to opt for among.

As for the other error in that paragraph, I believe there’s a mismatch between the subject designer and the verb, which should be tells. I can’t be sure since there appears to be some extra words, but I think the writer promises to let us know what the designer is listening to. That is simply a lie. The interview that follows does not include any such info.

The interviewer was clearly in the dark about Josef Albers’ “Interaction of Color,” which is a book. The designer was also influenced by the Blaschkas, a father and son, and not just one misspelled person:

font style 2

It would have been nice (and expected from a real site with any integrity) to check the references made by the person being interviewed. But this is Yahoo!, and journalistic integrity is not a priority.

Also not a priority? Punctuation. At least, correct punctuation is not a priority. Maybe someone will tell us about the process the writer has for distinguishing between a question and an imperative sentence:

font style 3

Setting back gender equality by decades

At a time when real journalists refer to the late Joan Rivers as a comedian and male and female thespians as actors, why would the writer for Yahoo! Style make a sorry attempt at referring to Anna Wintour as an editrix?

editirix style

I guess if you don’t know if your boss is an editor, editor in chief, or editor-in-chief, you don’t know that a female editor is an editor.

Is that Jonah Hill?

It’s not quite Jonah Hill on the home page of Yahoo! Style:

name johah hill style

I was pretty sure the writer meant “Jonah,” but just to be sure, I clicked through to the article, which I didn’t read:

jonah style

Just looking at the dense text was giving me a headache. If a writer can’t be bothered to hit the Enter key once in a while, I can’t be bothered to read her musings.

I think I’ll go take two Advil and go lie down on my new futon.

Here’s a better way to thank someone

You know what would be a better way for the editor in chief of Yahoo! Style to thank someone? Getting his name right:

paul style

This misspelling isn’t even close. The president and publisher is Paul Turcotte. The writer could also show some respect for his readers by employing correct grammar. He should be thanking Mr. Turcotte for “having Gigi and me,” not “Gigi and I.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 748 other followers

%d bloggers like this: