According to recent article in the Guardian, journalists and editors are waging a war of words at the Financial Times. “A row has broken out at the Financial Times after editor Lionel Barber implied subediting [sic] standards were slipping in an internal email [ED: time for a better email?]. Barber’s email stated: ‘Elementary spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are creeping into copy. One of the worst cases appeared in Weekend People, where a plural subject somehow warranted a single verb. But there were other examples, notably the use (again) of ‘reigning back’ instead of ‘reining back’ . . . ‘” Barber’s diatribe has angered members of the National Union of Journalists. Up with this they will not put!
David Crouch, the NUJ’s representative at the FT, wrote in an open letter: “Your update this week raises some important issues for journalists and management at the FT. It has also annoyed a lot of journalists, who have asked me to write to you.
“The poor headlines, elementary spelling mistakes and grammatical errors that you point to are a result of the progressive undermining of production journalism at the FT. The loss through redundancy of a layer of experienced production journalists has intensified the crisis brought on by the new newsroom.”
Talk about making a crisis out of a drama. No really; the union rep with a distinctly Dickensian name argues that the debate over grammar is, wait for it, a safety issue.
“Subbing and production in general are rarely mentioned in your updates, with the exception of the odd Lex headline. Singling out production journalists for criticism therefore only rubs salt in the wound of departments already under great pressure. We believe the situation is unsafe and unprofessional.”
In fact, vigilant NUJ members are all that stand between the paper and genuine grammatical catastrophe. Crouch’s letter mentioned “three instances when we came close to serious mistakes being published” and outlined the examples:
1. A London front page headline was a whisker away from being sent with the word ‘Bank’ in it when it should have been ‘Banks’.
2. An Asia front page was called back at 7.10 PM because the caption wrongly labelled the man in the picture as a leading figure in al-Qaeda.
3. A Lombard column talked of UK employment passing 2.5m when it should, of course, have been unemployment.
Quiet how a mislabeled terrorist crept into a debate over grammar is anyone’s guess, although stealth is undoubtedly a main part of their evil repertoire. Not this guy’s, obviously, but . . . never mind. TTAG will, of course, stay on top of this potentially nuclear conflict.