Metropol

Both the BBC and ITV have used the same headline today announcing the proposal for a high-speed rail link 'between London and Scotland'. Why not between England and Scotland or between London and Glasgow?

Scotland (for those in the media who don't know) is a somewhat large country and that rail link won't be going everywhere.

Is it just laziness, stupidity, ignorance etc etc...

Andrew Wood wrote:Both the BBC and ITV have used the same headline today announcing the proposal for a high-speed rail link 'between London and Scotland'. Why not between England and Scotland or between London and Glasgow?

Scotland (for those in the media who don't know) is a somewhat large country and that rail link won't be going everywhere.

Is it just laziness, stupidity, ignorance etc etc...

I spotted that myself this morning, but then on the animated graphic I saw that it spurs off at the borders to serve both Edinburgh and Glasgow (although Edinburgh won't be part of the fast track).

So I *suppose* that makes their phraseology alright.

Although its probably more of a coincidence than anything.

The general standard of journalism - print and broadcast - is appalling these days. The problem is that one of the cost saving measures of the last few years is the abolition of the sub-editor. Their job was to tidy the piece the journalist had written, checking and correcting as they went along. In the process of that checking, the sub would also be pointing out these mistakes to the journalist who'd made them so that they would learn not to make them again.

This process doesn't happen much today and so the same mistakes are made over and over again.

I'm also sick of hearing phrases in broadcast news that would not be used in normal conversation. Both related to the same kind of stories, listen out for "escaped injury" and "had to flee their home". They pop up regularly in news stories on the TV and radio, but when did you last use a sentence like that yourself in normal speech?

Another irritation: headlines that begin with quotes. I recently heard George Alagiah begin the six o'clock news with the words "don't take away my children". Quotes do not work as broadcast headlines when read in that way. It's trashy.

While I'm on a roll I'm also very getting rather pissed off with television announcers (on all channels) read random groups of words that do not form complete sentences as if it's perfectly acceptable.

marksi wrote:While I'm on a roll I'm also very getting rather pissed off with television announcers (on all channels) read random groups of words that do not form complete sentences as if it's perfectly acceptable.

Agree. Should never be done.

Any attempt by a newspaper to turn a box office smash into a witty headline (e.g. "Potter movie casts a spell at box office"), or a sports-related article into a joke (e.g. "Friend or Defoe?") is automatically unfunny.

"..that will NOT NOW be taking place...."

Please, will somebody teach news reporters how to use the word 'won't'!

"..that won't be taking place now...."

Sounds much nicer.

Chie wrote:"..that will NOT NOW be taking place...."

Please, will somebody teach news reporters how to use the word 'won't'!

"..that won't be taking place now...."

Sounds much nicer.

Wouldn't it want to be "that now won't be taking place" if you mean that something has developed and the new situation is that something won't be taking place?

Given that I achieved an A Grade in English Language last week, I like to think that I might have some informed clue as to what it should be.

However, I don't. So... carry on.

I think it can be either combination.

Chie wrote:I think it can be either combination.

Don't think so, "that won't be taking place now" is too ambiguous and could also mean it won't be taking place this second, see.

Whilst we're on words/expressions not normally said, what is it this obsession the tabloid press have with the word 'romp' (or the equally common verb 'to romp')? Who actually says that in normal conversation/writing?