Unintelligibly illiterate BBC News article link text

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:10 am

I can take no more without protest. The BBC News website carries links by category into news reports. I have no idea who composes them but they're often misleading, often illiterate and frequently leave me utterly unaware of what the story is about. The BBC should pull its socks up.

As I see examples I'll drop them in here. The trigger for the thread, after all too many offences, is "Ammunition in policeman's mouth", the story to which is actually headlined "Bullet found lodged in mouth of Sutton St James siege officer". Bullet, yes. One refers, however, to a round of ammunition. A round of ammunition includes the casing, explosive charge and percussion cap as well as the bullet. A policeman with ammunition in his mouth would, perhaps, be hiding one or more rounds there, but it has nothing at all to do with these facts as presented. It's plain illiteracy and the BBC should be held to better standards.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:43 am

Funny though. Although it shouldn't be since it sounds like a serious story and I'd be angry if I were in anyway involved in this since the headline is disrespectful. But it's still funny.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:02 am

Had it been deliberate, then it might have been funny.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:07 am

I can't see why you are making so much fuss. The BBC are In the main accurate In reporting. Every one's human and subject to human error.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:24 am

oscar;1383958 wrote: I can't see why you are making so much fuss. The BBC are In the main accurate In reporting. Every one's human and subject to human error.

Because journalists are employed to be literate and some of the basic mistakes made would shame a ten year old?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:26 am

Bryn Mawr;1383962 wrote: Because journalists are employed to be literate and some of the basic mistakes made would shame a ten year old?

But In the grand scheme of volume of reporting, It's one of very few.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:30 am

oscar;1383963 wrote: But In the grand scheme of volume of reporting, It's one of very few.

I'm with Spot on this one - the standard of English in media reporting is abysmal and getting worse.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:36 am

My guess is the person writing the piece is inexperienced and attempted to use a term other than "bullet" to avoid sounding redundant. The piece also seems to lack flow and continuity.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:44 am

spot;1383955 wrote: Had it been deliberate, then it might have been funny.

I think it's funny because it wasn't deliberate.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:41 am

Personally I am amused that Spot is disturbed by a misnomer in a report about an unarmed Police officer's injury from a gunshot

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:43 am

Bruv;1383993 wrote: Personally I am amused that Spot is disturbed by a misnomer in a report about an unarmed Police officer's injury from a gunshot

I with you on that one.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:47 pm

Hmm, shot in the mouth eh?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:17 pm

According to this Spot, It is you who are wrong.

ammunition - definition of ammunition by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Or this...

Ammunition | Define Ammunition at Dictionary.com

am·mu·ni·tion [am-yuh-nish-uhn] Show IPA

noun

1.

the material fired, scattered, dropped, or detonated from any weapon, as bombs or rockets, and especially shot, shrapnel, bullets, or shells fired by guns.

And this:

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-d ... ammunition

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:30 pm

It just goes to show what a prat one can make of oneself when one relies selectively on non-authoritative sources.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:40 pm

spot;1384015 wrote: It just goes to show what a prat one can make of oneself when one relies selectively on non-authoritative sources. The Collins English dictionary Is not a non-authoritative source.

I have supplied three sources, you have supplied none, just your claims.

You really do get white and spiteful when challenged Spot and thus, you make a prat of yourself.

If you challenge the three links I have given, then provide your own.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:54 pm

here we go... another two sources.

What does ammunition mean?

The English dictionary Is about as reliable as you can get:

ammunition definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso Collins

ammunition

1 n-uncount Ammunition is bullets and rockets that are made to be fired from guns.

He had only seven rounds of ammunition for the revolver.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:23 pm

I guess it's not so funny after all.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:24 pm

She'll ask someone for a bit of advice eventually I hope.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 3:29 pm

spot;1384020 wrote: She'll ask someone for a bit of advice eventually I hope.

I think the evidence I have provided speaks for It'self.

Couldn't find a link to prove otherwise then I take It ?

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:29 pm

Don't feel bad Spot. The words ammunition, munition, round and shot are all seemingly used interchangeably in all different contexts. I read dozens of books on warfare and much material on the internet and it can get confusing.

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:36 am

Scrat;1384050 wrote: Don't feel bad Spot. The words ammunition, munition, round and shot are all seemingly used interchangeably in all different contexts. I read dozens of books on warfare and much material on the internet and it can get confusing.

I have no doubt there's widespread confusion. That doesn't mean there's not a right answer and a wrong answer. Quite why Vampirella chooses to embarrass herself continually by following me around this way I'm unsure but she'd do far better if she were occasionally correct.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:18 am

spot;1383947 wrote: I can take no more without protest. The BBC News website carries links by category into news reports. I have no idea who composes them but they're often misleading, often illiterate and frequently leave me utterly unaware of what the story is about. The BBC should pull its socks up.

As I see examples I'll drop them in here. The trigger for the thread, after all too many offences, is "Ammunition in policeman's mouth", the story to which is actually headlined "Bullet found lodged in mouth of Sutton St James siege officer". Bullet, yes. One refers, however, to a round of ammunition. A round of ammunition includes the casing, explosive charge and percussion cap as well as the bullet. A policeman with ammunition in his mouth would, perhaps, be hiding one or more rounds there, but it has nothing at all to do with these facts as presented. It's plain illiteracy and the BBC should be held to better standards.

Hmmm I agree, a spent bullet ceases to be ammunition.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:32 am

spot;1384055 wrote: I have no doubt there's widespread confusion. That doesn't mean there's not a right answer and a wrong answer. Quite why Vampirella chooses to embarrass herself continually by following me around this way I'm unsure but she'd do far better if she were occasionally correct.

The only one continually embarrassing themselves here Is you.

As for following you around ?

Most of your threads, I don't even read let alone comment on. If challenging you on just two threads constitutes ' following you around ' then you are behaving like a petulant child as well as a hypocrite. You have littered this forum with troll like behaviour picking some members posts to pieces.

I challenged you on the Falklands thread because of the words ' I propose ' when I had read a proposal prior that you found a suspicious manner of writing the author's words almost word for word In your OP.

I challenged you on this thread because I had a feeling your OP was Inaccurate. I asked my husband first who has served In the armed forces In rifles and hand guns. He told me that 'Ammunition ' Is the collective term for any part of a weapon Including the missile fired from It. Then I checked out not one Un-authorised source but 5 Including The Collins and The English Dictionary which supported what my husband said. Scrat has posted that you are wrong. Today, I popped Into one of my local shops where the owner was a big cheese In the British Army. He also supported my husband and the 5 definitions I linked for you.

The only problem you have here, Is that you are wrong. Whilst you are happy to pick apart anyone who makes an error, you resort to Insults when you receive the same treatment, going as far as to make ludicrous accusations that you are being followed around. This Is the very reason newbie's don't stick around and many fear to tread In your threads and disagree with you. As when you have no-where to go, you start with the Insults. It's repetitive, boring and predictable. For goodness sake, grow up. Your wrong.... Be a man and accept It.

If you don't want to be challenged and proved wrong, It's simple, check your facts before you write and make a fool of yourself....

Post by **spot** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:40 am

What an unintelligibly illiterate plonker.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:42 am

spot;1384081 wrote: What an unintelligibly illiterate plonker.

That's the best you've got little man ?

Pathetic.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:39 pm

Sorry to interfere with the little tit tat going on here but if you notice the wording of the definitions you'll note they respond to its present and past tense . After a round, bomb, rocket has been fired it ceases to be ammunition It cannot be 'fired' again and therefore ceases to be 'ammunition'. Also if you break the word up (as my trusty form four english teacher always told us to do if not sure of a word) It's why they call it a 'munitions' dump and not an 'ammunitions' dump. The prefix 'am' gives the noun it's present full tense, but because the noun has the capacity to change it's design, 'am' is put in front of it to give the word scope.

If this copper has a spent round in his cheek it is not ammunition because the noun has changed it's design and use.

I hope this helps.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:10 am

Today we have 'Few know' Euro emergency number, in which it turns out that "Euro" is being used as an abbreviation for "European holiday" instead of naming the currency. The "Euro emergency number" turns out to be 112 and the Few turns out to be the British, though not in the conventional sense of those who fought the Battle of Britain. Many, in fact, know the European emergency number and Euro is never in any context a suitable abbreviation for European, holiday or otherwise, not even a BBC news link.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:59 am

Unless you have complained to the Beeb and they have edited the page, it reads OK to me.

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:16 am

Bruv;1384182 wrote: Unless you have complained to the Beeb and they have edited the page, it reads OK to me.

The page reads fine, yes. It always did. The text of the link to the article is the unintelligibly illiterate bit.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:52 am

Sorry...........you are nit picking.

It is a space limited link, and you have imposed your ill judged meanings to its content.

Euro, although it is the European currency is also shorthand for Europe, as can be seen in several Euro prefixed instances.

The word few means 'not many' when capitalised as The Few it means something else, to which you allude mistakenly.

So to me......'Few know' Euro emergency number..... means.....

Not many people know European emergency numbers

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:00 am

I congratulate you on your ability to intuit the link text meanings. For those which leave me baffled, I have this thread in which to vent my annoyance.

If the cause of the unintelligibility is restricted space then the web pages need a redesign.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:21 am

No intuition required, just read the words in the context of the sentence in front of you, do not presuppose and impose widely used 'other' meanings.

Here.........are you word blind or summink ?

Recall the affectation of using red and stuff for read etc......that's English for you, take it or leave it.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:34 pm

Bruv;1384190 wrote: No intuition required, just read the words in the context of the sentence in front of you, do not presuppose and impose widely used 'other' meanings.

Here.........are you word blind or summink ?

Recall the affectation of using red and stuff for read etc......that's English for you, take it or leave it.

You know what I find creepy?

I have 5 members of my family In the police force, 7 If you count a detective In my extended family and a police dog kennel maid... All of them are pretty normal people. They don't think they are Columbo but they are all family people with wives, husbands, small children and babies.

The article In the OP Is about a police officer and probably a regular guy and father, being shot In the face...yet the author of the thread Is more concerned about the pedantic's of the English Grammar....

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:34 am

But isn't the thread about english grammar?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:54 am

Well, it was until the sexual tension between these two became too overwhelming to resist.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:03 am

Oh thanks very much for the visual.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:35 am

While it may not be unintelligible, "Motorbiker caught doing 156mph" is just plain vile. Motorbiker?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:37 am

and the word for today is pedant

Pedant | Define Pedant at Dictionary.com

Might I suggest a new word for use on the forum made up from the names of two members whose love and affection for each shines through whenever their paths cross. know no bounds.

how about an ospot? or potcar, or maybe ospotcar. used in sentences like stop being an ospot

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:55 am

"Sacropost" ? then it could be said someone was being sacropostic.

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:25 pm

gmc;1386084 wrote: and the word for today is pedantQuite uncalled for. Motorbiker is indeed utterly irredeemably vile, pointless and illiterate. The BBC should hang its collective head and not cease until it expunges from its fellowship the uneducated moron who wrote it, or at least sends him on a remedial course in English.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:24 pm

gmc;1386084 wrote:

Might I suggest a new word for use on the forum made up from the names of two members whose love and affection for each shines through whenever their paths cross. know no bounds.

how about an ospot? or potcar, or maybe ospotcar. used in sentences like stop being an ospot Throw In a ' T ' and you've got Tosspot

Post by **spot** » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:52 pm

I note the BBC link now starts "Motorcyclist". Well done someone.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:35 am

spot;1386105 wrote: Quite uncalled for. Motorbiker is indeed utterly irredeemably vile, pointless and illiterate. The BBC should hang its collective head and not cease until it expunges from its fellowship the uneducated moron who wrote it, or at least sends him on a remedial course in English.

English usage is changing all the time it's a waste of time getting hung up on how usage changes the meaning of words. Gay being the classic example. Motorbiking is a common term so is motorcyclist the meaning is clear, context is all. I am a mountain biker, mountain-cyclist is somehow not quite right. Next you'll be complaining about the way words are made up whenever it suits - like telephone and television, it should be aircraft and not aeroplane and textspeak is an abomination and teenagers should be thrashed to within an inch of their lives.

posted by oscar

Throw In a ' T ' and you've got Tosspot

Not to be pedantic or anything but you would also need to throw in another s. tospot or to spot sounds like an rapper - like florida is to flo rider. to spot and os car two souls passing each other on the inter-net what was and might have been - Guess I'm just a romantic at heart.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:35 am

Not precisely a link text, but a summary text:Presently once meant "shortly" or "soon"; it's currently used to mean "now".

BBC News - Are language cops losing war against 'wrongly' used words?

Au contraire, BBC. The very reverse is the case. How on earth can you have got that so completely twisted?

Post by **spot** » Tue May 08, 2012 6:06 am

I note the link "Horse origins mystery 'solved'", which has nothing whatever to do with the origins of the horse. The article is actually headed BBC News - Mystery of horse taming 'solved' by gene study and begins "Horses were domesticated 6,000 years ago on the grasslands of Ukraine, southwest Russia and west Kazakhstan, a genetic study shows".

The BBC should be far from satisfied with some of its staff. What does this prat think the beast was before it was domesticated, if not a horse?

Post by **spot** » Tue May 08, 2012 6:12 am

I'm none too impressed by "Maddy holiday photo dubbed 'vile'" on the same page, either.

Firstly, the BBC should know better than to be so vulgar. "Maddy" is a trivializing tabloid abbreviation.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with the photo, it's not vile at all. What's vile is the use it was put to by the offending website.

All of that's absent from the headline on the story itself - BBC News - Madeleine McCann photo use in holiday ad 'vile'

What's messed up is the ill-educated misbegotten goon at the BBC who abbreviated the headline. If the hyperlink text is screwed up because the space available for it is too small then redesign that part of the page. Whatever the BBC does, it should stop the illiterate gibberish from appearing.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:23 am

maddy is the diminutive of madelaine and as such appropriate when applied to a small child.

Post by **spot** » Tue May 08, 2012 7:48 am

gmc;1393216 wrote: maddy is the diminutive of madelaine and as such appropriate when applied to a small child.

When you've been introduced to her, and with her consent, I'd agree, but not when referring to anyone, child or otherwise, murder victim or not, on a national news outlet. The BBC news site is not a gossip magazine. There's a long-established convention in any reputable news publication: on first use in an article a surname or full name is given, with a title like Mr/Miss/Mrs for adults. If the person has been convicted of a crime then subsequent reference is by surname only, otherwise the title and surname continue to be used throughout. "Maddy" is utterly, totally, crass and condescending and insensitive, it's a definitive mark of unacceptable gutter-press filthing.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue May 08, 2012 9:56 am

Well.......it's nice you are leaving the Yanks alone.

Have you never noticed how language evolves ?

You have far too much time on your hands.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:55 am

Malaysian company buys Battersea

Malaysian company buys Battersea Dogs' Home? Malaysian company buys Battersea MP? Malaysian company buys Battersea Park Tube Station? Malaysian company buys Battersea Arts Centre? Malaysian company buys Battersea Square?

Some stupid bloody work-experience school-leaver with all the academic qualifications of a Sergeant of Marines is wrecking the BBC Website with meaningless shorthand like this.