Editors - what planet are they from?

snowleopard

snowleopard

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
33,645
Location
Oxford
Visit site
In the 'Misleading advice' thread I posted:

"A flag with a red cross on a white ground and the union flag in one corner is called a 'gin pennant' and signifies that the owner invites you on board for a drink."

The thread was printed in this month's YM but by the time the editors had finished with it, it came out as:

"A flag with a red cross on a white background is called a 'gin pennant' and signifies that you are invited on board for a drink."

It's one thing to hack the phrasing about but in doing so to destroy the entire point seems to be going a bit far. Or do they employ people who don't know the difference between a white ensign and an English flag? /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
They're not best known for the accuracy of some articles but it does seem peculiar that they wouldn't just take a thread and print it rather than change it , surely they know that it only takes a couple of changes to alter the meaning completely
 
In my young days, the text would have been expertly chopped or padded to fit the space available by a skilled sub-editor or, if they considered it too technical or difficult for them, handed back to the author to make the appropriate cuts or changes.

These days, a 'designer' driving a Macintosh will often simply lop off a few unimportant looking words here and there as they go to get the text to fit; they tend to care more how nice the page looks from three feet away than what it actually says.

I don't know if this is what happened in this case but it's a shame to ruin what I thought was a good joke at the time with an unnecessary and unprofessional editing error. Does the magazine make similar mistakes when it has important news or articles to convey?

Oh and I'm allowed to rant from my hobby horse like this because everyone keeps telling me it's father's day and I should indulge myself.

I've already b**d off at 0600 on the boat and been safely tucked up back in port with a bacon sandwich in the cafe by 11 and am now off to find something else fun to do...
 
This is down to subeditors, not editors, i wd say? They thought theywere neatening it, and perhaps that you had repeated yourself, and in so doing they blew it. Happens all the time, especially in matters of fact: being keen on arts rather than facts, they like neat sets of words regardless of the meaning. Heyho.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Nope ... neither of them from your (currently) 424 posts! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Editors eh! What use are they ?
 
I got the impression that the whole mag had been assembled in a bit of a hurry,quite a few typos and bits of gobbledydook where they hadn't put in the proper text.

The bit I liked was the assertion in the article on Ireland stating that the RN had stopped returning ensign salutes while the INS still kept the tradition going.
 
I agree. The whole mag was a bit of a dogs dinner this month. James Stevens is also miffed that they misquoted him on the IRPCS. He tells me that he certainly DIDN'T say that yachts should sometimes ignore the ColRegs - but I don't want to thrift the dread onto that subject.
 
Sorry we screwed up your post, Snowleopard. I agree it doesn't make much sense as it appeared. At the moment I don't know what happened but I have asked someone in the office to explain and I'll post when I get a reply.
 
I've met idiot subs who chop out random bits to make the text fit. I once wrote an article about my retirement from the OSTAR and a sub cut out the paragraph where I explained how the steering broke. As a result the whole thing made no sense at all.

But if they are quoting from this forum, why do they have to paraphrase it anyway?
 
A friend of mine was sacked from one of the women's mags after "subbing" a knitting pattern. It wouldn't fit, and after hours of wrestling with it she just chopped it from the end until it did fit. Sadly none of the cardigans knitted by hundreds of readers fitted...they were missing most of one arm. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
John, misquoting and getting facts straight go both ways. James Stevens was NOT misquoted in YM he was misquoted in another magazine. Here is his email to YM:

In the July issue of *** I am reported to have said (at an RIN lecture) that yachts should avoid ships by, if necessary, not complying with the Colregs. What I actually said was that yachts should avoid entering a situation where a ship is the give way vessel.

regards
James Stevens
 
<< yachts should avoid entering a situation where a ship is the give way vessel.>>

That's a good way of summing up the view of every sensible yachtsman
 
[ QUOTE ]
The whole mag was a bit of a dogs dinner this month.

[/ QUOTE ]

It starts from the top!

The first thing that hit me in the eye was the piece on page 1 by the Editor, no less, where he says ". . . but that's there perogative"

The word is PREROGATIVE

Please request Mr Gelder to write out 100 times, PRE...

Then on page 20 there is some gobbldegook under a picture of a radio.

I give up!



And I failed my 11 plus.


/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
Rowana,

Please write out 100 times:

'When I quote a mistake by others I will not add extra mistakes of my own. '

Even 11+ failures should be able recognise the difference between there and their. At least the Editor got this right and he's from a different planet apparently.

You see how easy it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top