Why the BBC sucks (2)

clipped from the BBC News website:

Many young people do not know how dangerous roads are for inexperienced motorists, a survey suggests.

Some 32% thought that one in 40 drivers killed were aged under 25 and 5% thought it was one in 400, when the figure is actually 25% of deaths.

There are two problems with this slack piece of journalism.

1. What’s with the use of the word ‘some€™ in this context? Does the work experience trainee who wrote this piece mean ‘more than 32%’ ‘less than 32%’ or even ‘32%’? It’s a ridiculous use of the word ‘some’ in the professional world of journalism. And yet… have good trawl through the BBC News website and you’ll see they use ‘some’ in this context as a matter of routine. Twats.

2. How confusing is the second paragraph? 32% of people thought one in 40, 5% thought one in 400 – that’s OK – but the figure is actually 25% of deaths. What on earth? Where’s the consistency?

Shocking.

I’m starting to wonder if the BBC is employing an infinite number of monkeys…

Source.

Brennig.

Why the BBC sucks (1)

Man sets himself alight at cinema
More than 70 people were forced to leave a cinema in Bedford after a man set fire to himself in the foyer.
The man went into (sic) Cineworld in Aspects Leisure Complex on Monday evening and poured petrol over himself before setting it alight.

Source

Is it only me who thinks this article puts the inconveniencing of 70 people above the poor unfortunate’s untimely death?

 This is an accurate example of how bad the BBC’s written journalism has become recently.

Brennig.