this is found in the article's second sentence, and fewer has become less. Booooooo. Then,
the writer somehow thinks that 206 is nearly double 154. Oooookay. Click an image to enlarge it. Also, the term "Tri-Cities" is used five times in the article, and not once is it said which cities are included in the Tri-Cities. Here are two of the 20 comments below the article:
It would be nice if you could identify the "Tri-Cities." Perhaps the
locals know but other people ...? I gather Coquitlam is one. What are
I've often wondered what the "Tri-Cities" were, and I still don't know!
There's one apostrophe too many in the third/final sentence of this very short article ("Costco's poppy policy still unclear" on CBC News online on November 7, 2013), which was apparently too long to proofread. Click the image to enlarge it.
If you're a journalist and you want to make a statement with your misspelling, but you don't want to be so bold as to put it in a headline, why not try a subheadline?! The correct spelling of Tsawwassen is, well, Tsawwassen. Click the image to enlarge it. From "1,000 dolphins swim beside ferry off Gulf Islands" on CBC News online on November 1, 2013.
Sometimes on Survivor, when the participants are speaking quietly, captions will appear for the viewers. In this case, from the episode that aired on October 30, the caption featured a misspelling of embarrassing. This isn't real-time captioning, and is therefore inexcusable. Click the image to enlarge it.
The year was 2013 and the month was October and the errors on the Yahoo! Canada homepage were plentiful. First, on October 9 what was drooping should have been dropping. Then,
on October 10 I knew something was wrong here - because it made no sense - but I had to click to the article to determine the error: at should have been act. Then,
on October 13 there was this bit of nonsense. The Flames are not what? They're not suck? Perhaps and they don't would've been better, eh? Then,
on October 19 I read this and subsequently clicked the link and watched the video. [The article: "News Anchor Has Makeup Malfunction" on Yahoo! Canada News on October 18, 2013] Her right eye was fine; her left eye was where the problem occurred. Plus, (actually Taiwan)
this is the entire article/description below the video. The news anchor is in Taiwan, and one can clearly hear that in the video. Then,
also on October 19 there was confusion regarding Maru's last name: Oropesa or Orepesa? Then,
on October 21 I wasn't surprised to see another misspelling. It's another nonword on your homepage, Yahoo! - are you proud? Then,
on October 25 yet another nonword appeared on the Yahoo! Canada homepage - plauged should have been plagued. Also, because it's the Canadian Yahoo!, rumors should have been rumours. Then,
on October 28 it should have been in. Then,
on October 29 there was another nonword because harassed had one too many Rs. Finally,
also on October 29, the spelling of intimate got bungled. Click an image to enlarge it.
If you're going to make an error, might as well put it right in the headline to get it over with - that should have been than. From "Solve problems by asking more that why" in 24 hours Vancouver on October 21, 2013. Then,
on a different page in the same paper there was this. This is the entire thing. What the fun? Who is "him/he"? Is he Pratt's father? Pratt's life partner? Pratt's son? Pratt's dog? Click an image to enlarge it.
three paragraphs later there is yet another spelling of the aforementioned park. The park was named three times - once as Hadden, once as Haddon, and once as Haddem. The correct spelling is the first one, which means the correct one was the one on the homepage. The two variations in the article itself are both wrong, and are both still present. Good one, CBC. Then,
on October 23 the first has should have been was. I hope you're sitting down,
because clicking to the article ("Trucker warned police before fatal Langley crash" on CBC News online on October 23, 2013) led me to a well of incompetence. The subheadline says the warning occurred several hours before the crash. Also, you can see that at the time of this screen capture - as well as the following few - the article had been updated at least once. Then,
the photo caption at the top of the article says the crash happened on Tuesday. Remember that. Then,
the first sentence has been corrected from what was on the homepage, but the second sentence stated that the trucker was driving through the area in the early morning hours on Saturday. That'd be between midnight and 5am on Saturday, right? Who would call that "several hours" before something that happened on Tuesday? Then,
the trucker called immediately after he drove past the danger, and the time was 12:11 p.m. - really?! So, he drove past in the early morning hours and a call he made at 12:11 p.m. is "immediately after"? What? Then,
the crash apparently happened at 3:50 a.m. - again, the call was "several hours" before? Surely the call was made at 12:11 a.m., right? That would make it both early morning hours and several hours before the crash. I still don't get the Tuesday/Saturday difference though. Then,
a few hours later the article corrected the time of the phone call to 12:11 a.m. - well, not exactly. You'll see. Then,
in a previous article ("Construction crew allegedly ignored warnings in Langley crash" on CBC News online on October 22, 2013), the crash is said to have taken place in 3:50 a.m. on a Tuesday. I don't disagree with this, but include this image because of the inclusion of "Tuesday", which a similar paragraph above doesn't have. Then,
a couple of days later a related article appeared ("Police confirm 911 call was made hours before fatal crash" on CBC News online on October 25, 2013). Remember how the call was made at 12:11 p.m. a.m.? Turns out it was actually made at 11:11 p.m. on Monday night. Not exactly early morning hours on Saturday. FFS, CBC - didn't everything of consequence happen on Monday and Tuesday? Leave Saturday out of it. Then,
back to errors on the homepage unrelated to that dog's breakfast of a story! On October 24, I think the tourist is from Britain. I came to this conclusion because Britian isn't a thing. Then,
on October 26 there was a doubling up of been. Then,
on October 30 there was a two-fer. In the top story Ladner is misspelled, and in the bottom story either receiving or responding to should have been jettisoned. Phew, that's it! Click an image to enlarge it.