View previous topic | View next topic

The Grauniad and other gripes

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Southpaw
518771.  Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:35 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
What about the FT? How would that be ridiculed?


There is no more appropriate place than these here forums to quote Not the Nine O'Clock News: "I read the Financial Times, because I've got a pink bathroom."

Quote:
The Dily Express - The Daily Express (because they continue to print stories about Princess Diana)


While true, I believe the Daily Distress is more commonly used.

 
Davini994
518782.  Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:49 pm Reply with quote

When I were a lad... I had a Spitting Image board game called Scandal, which was rather wonderful. Included were 6 or so newspapers with the names being a parody of real ones.

There's one on eBay in fact.

 
Ian Dunn
531679.  Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:35 am Reply with quote

Some quite interesting facts about The Guardian:

* It was the first British newspaper to switch to the Berliner format. The only other paper to do so is it's sister paper The Observer, which the Guardian Media Group brought in 1993.

* The paper was called The Manchester Guardian until 1959, and then it moved to London in 1964.

* Although most of the paper is in full colour, the Northern Irish edition still has some black-and-white pages.

* When the paper converted to Berliner, they decided to drop the Doonesbury comic strip. The rest of this sparked hundreds of complaints from readers and the strip was brought back the following week.

* The Guardian website was originally home to The Ricky Gervais Show, the must successful podcasts in history.

* The Guardian along with Private Eye set-up the Paul Foot Award in 2004 for investigative or campaigning journalism.

 
gerontius grumpus
531916.  Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:17 pm Reply with quote

I quite like the Guardian, but some time ago they published a guide to English usage, in the form of a free booklet. This free booklet said that just about all the bad usage that I hate and complain about is OK and people who complain about it are over pedantic.

Hmm what would they know?

 
Sadurian Mike
531919.  Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:21 pm Reply with quote

Maybe just an arse-covering exercise to deflect criticism?

 
bobwilson
531920.  Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:24 pm Reply with quote

I quite liked the Weakest Link edition which contained the question (slightly paraphrased due to memory lapse)

Which UK national newspaper is parodied by Private Eye as the Grauniad due to it's reputation for spelling mistakes?

To which the (verbatim) answer was given:

The Sun

 
Sadurian Mike
531923.  Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:30 pm Reply with quote

Whereas the Sun can make plenty of spelling mistakes as its readers are unlikely to be able to spot them in the first place.


(I couldn't let a Jasper Carrot-style "Sun reader" joke go begging).

 
bobwilson
531930.  Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:42 pm Reply with quote

There seem to be fairly few spelling mistakes in The Sun - unless you count Phwoaar; Gotcha and other made up words.

Much as I dislike its' politics, I do admire the Sun's house style - which is plain speaking without the pretentions of The Guardian/Times/Telegraph. It doesn't waste print on waffle - it just says what it means.

 
Theblazeuk
532527.  Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:14 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
I quite like the Guardian, but some time ago they published a guide to English usage, in the form of a free booklet. This free booklet said that just about all the bad usage that I hate and complain about is OK and people who complain about it are over pedantic


Just in case you are interested - here are Mr Fry's thoughts on the matter, in podcast form:http://www.stephenfry.com/media/audio/109/series-2-episode-3--language/

(edit: used 'is' instead of 'are'... :) )

 
npower1
553911.  Thu May 14, 2009 7:31 am Reply with quote

I've just noticed the following at the bottom of page 1 of the free Southampton News Extra.

'Over 150,000* copies distributed covering Southampton, Eastleigh, and Winchester

* publisher's statement'

(Note: I haven't put the above in the usual quote format since I haven't been able to find an online copy.)

Its the asterisk that speaks to me. Why does the publisher think they need to specify the source of the number? Is there someone out there who disputes this number? Are they just implying that they've made this number up?

 
bobwilson
554086.  Thu May 14, 2009 3:31 pm Reply with quote

There's a proper audit of newspaper circulation figures so a statement by the publisher should be highlighted as such.

 
npower1
554087.  Thu May 14, 2009 3:35 pm Reply with quote

So does this imply that the audited circulation number is less than that given by the publisher?

 
Ion Zone
554089.  Thu May 14, 2009 3:40 pm Reply with quote

The Guardian known as 'the guardian'.



Has anyone else noticed that basic puntuation has been vanishing in the media recently?

 
bobwilson
554093.  Thu May 14, 2009 3:52 pm Reply with quote

npower1 wrote:
So does this imply that the audited circulation number is less than that given by the publisher?


Not necessarily - it just means that the publisher is declaring that the circulation figure hasn't (yet) been independently verified.

 
Davini994
554101.  Thu May 14, 2009 4:07 pm Reply with quote

Yes, I think we had that discussion not long ago, didn't we?

There are many ways to count or estimate something, and most things are necessarily estimates. So knowing the source is important; if it's from a source that benefits from choosing the way of counting it that gives as high as possible, then that's relevant.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group