Eek! It’s a wrong word! And another!

Eek! A mouse! That’s what cartoon characters scream as they jump onto the nearest chair. What the Yahoo! Celebrity writer meant was eke:

eek out cel

The pronoun who should be reserved for people (or animals with human-like qualities). In spite of what former presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said, corporations are not people.The correct word in this context is which.

Advertisements

How rude!

If you’re looking for a pronoun to refer to a person, don’t choose which, which is what the writer for Yahoo! Sports did:

which sports

Since it’s referring to people, the polite pronoun in this case is whom.

Which never know?

This mess surprised Yahoo! Sports fans, not to mention grammar fans, who never knew that a writer could be this bad and still have a job:

What is wrong with yahoo.com?

There are always errors on the Yahoo! front page, but it seems that lately they have multiplied. Could the Internet giant be outsourcing the writing to a non-English-speaking country? Or are internal changes and a drop in stock price responsible? Terrible typos, capitalization catastrophes, grammatical goofs, wayward words, and pointless punctuation abound. What’s behind all the errors?

Even when the day isn’t going your way, don’t you think you should proofread to make sure you used the correct word?

Even if you’re under a tight deadline, wouldn’t you check the capitalization of Jean-Claude Van Damme’s name?

And couldn’t you do a quick read, just to see if you omitted a word?

Don’t you think a professional journalist would know that Western is capitalized when it refers to a region of the United States?

Shouldn’t you expect a writer or editor to know that the correct word is that, and not which? Wouldn’t you think that a writer would decide if Taliban is plural or singular, but not both?

Couldn’t you spot a typo that never should have seen the light of day?

Isn’t it common knowledge that an apostrophe isn’t used to create a plural of years or decades?

What’s going on at yahoo.com? Or is this just what readers can expect from now on?

What you need to know

The most important thing to know about anything you read that was written by a Yahoo! staffer: Don’t believe it. You might assume because you read this on Yahoo! News that Dutch Ruppersberger is a Republican:

He’s not. (He’s a Democrat.) And you might assume that there’s a hotel in Washington, DC called JW Marriot. There isn’t. (But there is a JW Marriott.) And you might assume that the writer is familiar with basic English grammar. He’s not. (That “program that” should be “program, which.”)

And that’s what you need to know.

Wait! Wait! It’s Nikki Tait

The senior foreign affairs reporter for Yahoo! News‘ “The Envoy” made no effort to find the correct spelling of Nikki Tait’s name. (Seriously, you couldn’t Google her name?)

That’s the worst of these errors. Sticklers for correct grammar know that the correct word is that and not which and that the adverbs extremely domestically (which both modify unpopular) are awkward.

That changes everything

A simple slip of the fingers, a little missing word here, an extra word there. How bad can it be? In the case of an article about Sharron Angle, a conservative Republican candidate and pro-lifer,  the result can be disastrous. 

The article, appearing on Yahoo! Shine, starts off with the minor errors I’ve come to expect from anything written by a Yahoo! staffer.  The show name should be in quotation marks or italics (whichever is the standard for Yahoo!, assuming there is a style standard). That which should be that.

But the unforgivable error is the claim that Sharron Angle “maintained that she supported abortion.” One wrong word changed Ms. Angle from a pro-life to a pro-choice candidate.

After that incredible blunder, the rest of the article is relatively error-free — except for the missing word here and the misplaced question mark, which belongs after the quotation mark:

Oh, and the typo here and the hyphen missing from well-being:

I’ve often written about the negative effect typos have on a writer’s credibility. It’s no coincidence that a writer who is sloppy when it comes to grammar and punctuation also makes factual errors.

A sad tribute to World Press Freedom Day

It’s World Press Freedom Day, but the world press doesn’t get much respect from the Yahoo! Events team. In a tribute to the world’s journalists, Yahoo! manages to make at least one factual error:

WPFD  wasn’t “created” in 1997; it was proclaimed by the UN in 1993. After a mistake like that, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the writer would undercapitalize UNESCO, use which when that is called for, and omit a word or two.

It’s not much of a tribute to Amira Hass when you misspell her name:

I wonder how this typo got by the spell-checker:

I don’t know who’s responsible for this ad on the site, but I think they could use a proofreader:

I don’t recommend they employ a Yahoo! proofreader.

Emitting a guffaw

I nearly emitted a guffaw when I read this on Yahoo! Movies:

remit movies

I don’t think the writer understands the meaning of remit or when to use that instead of which.

That which should be that

Does it take a nitpicky editor to note the use of which instead of that on the Yahoo! front page?

which-fp

Grammar nerds will note that the nonrestrictive clause, which isn’t necessary to uniquely identify the object it modifies,  requires which. The clause that is necessary to identify the object it modifies is restrictive and requires that.

%d bloggers like this: