Rantings of a sub-editor

December 21, 2010

Brighton subbed to Brighten

Filed under: Brighton/Brighten,oops! — substuff @ 12:33 pm
Tags: , ,

Here’s one in the eye for all those nasty newspapers who have got rid of their in-house subs and switched to (cheaper) subbing hubs. If it had been subbed locally or on-site, “Brighton” would have been in the dictionary and therefore wouldn’t have been flagged up when some silly sod used a spellchecker. For shame!

The story is here, on Journalism.co.uk.



  1. Ouch.

    Just be thankful that she’s not from SJeremy Hunthorpe.

    Comment by Rick Role — December 21, 2010 @ 12:42 pm | Reply

  2. You’re being ironic with that “tow”, right? 😉

    Yes, it’s awful. The worst of the worst, in fact – changing the reporter’s original correct copy to something laughable is not what we are about. I’m not sure it can even be called an appalling bit of subbery. It’s more like anti-subbery.

    Personally, I have serious doubts about subs who use spellcheckers at all. Not only because the “replace” button calls to you like a siren to a sailor, but also because if you’re not better than a spellchecker, why are you doing the job? Dynamic spelling (the one that just puts a red line under dubious words) is useful. But a full spellcheck? C’mon.

    Having said that, the Which? policy is to run a spellcheck on every page before it goes to press. Hmph.

    Comment by substuff — December 21, 2010 @ 2:07 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: