It is not only the editor's responsibility to make sure that the grammar and spelling are at least acceptable to the reader, it is also the responsibility of the writer to check their article once it has been published to note what changes the subeditor/copy editor (or anyone else for that matter) has made to the original. It's simple: look and learn!
Too many writers don't even bother to read their own published work, let alone the work of other people. And, to top it all, they still want to be paid for their shoddy work.

...it is also up to the writer to check HIS/HER article....or, ...it is also up to the writerS to check their articleS....(capitals for effect)

I read the article and thought the language was absolutely appalling. Something should be done about it, this is not the first time I've noticed it. These are journalists who have supposedly studied to do this for a living!

And this in the most widely read broadsheet in the country!

Where was the Sub-Editor!

Why is it that we are all being subjected to this phenominum of having people, whose first language is blatently not the one they are trying to communicate in, doing so? Have English people communicate in English, Xhosa in Xhosa, Afrikaans in Afrikaans etc. I don't want to hear James Scholtz butchering English one more time, or anybody else for that matter. Why is this so hard to understand? The brain drain has left a terrible dent is all I can surmise. Use people who speak their own language present or write in that language. Duh!

So, I suppose it is back to the days of the Tower of Babel then?

Please explain

Some of the greatest English-language writers in the world are writers who are not writing in their first language. VS Naipul and Vladimir Nabokov are two who spring quickly to mind. JM Coetzee, for another. English is a universal language, so it should come as no surprise that millions of people might choose to speak and write it in conjunction with their first language. And why shouldn't they? The language is richer for it.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with your point and those authors, unfortunately the people we are talking about here haven't bothered to master, and aren't going to master the language the way that VS Naipaul etc have and that is the point. Why should we have torturerd English from non English speakers when there are perfectly capable English presenters. (or tortured Xhosa etc - before you get on that high horse)

J.M. Coetzee was born in Cape Town in 1940 to German and English parents, and grew up using English as his first language.

Phenominum?

there is nothing more irritating than people using incorrect grammar or not pronouncing their words properly in ANY language. when it comes to journalism, IT IS YOUR JOB to be able to master the language your are writing or speaking in. if that means hiring 1st language speakers only - or those who are excellent 2nd language speakers- then so be it. In print, the very least i want from a paper in MY language is correct spelling. When I listen to a radio or tv bulletin in MY language, I want to be able to understand what the hell it is the person is saying - pronounciation is key.

Journalism studies and literary studies are two different things. Comparing them is like comparing oranges to apples. In journalism schools you're taught ways of getting the story, with a strong focus on heavy news pieces. Journalism isn't only about this, it's also about language use which not many institutions have included in their curriculum. Editors don't know any better either, especially if their come from a journalism background. You may know news but it doesn't mean you know language. I think those who say English for the English should seriously re-think this. Not all english first language speakers, speak or even know the language very well. The Subs should be the ones who correct all grammatical errors, and journalists could learn a thing or two from this (but we all know that not many publications will send any article back to the writer for proofing before publishing). The curriculum is all wrong, journalism is one part of a whole, and the courses should include literary studies as well. And, as much as there's broadcast courses, there should be print courses devided into magazines and newspapers because it's not the same...

Xeno, i hear you, and cant speak for other institutions but the one i attended. we were taught about literary use. in fact it is a major subject from 1st year thru to the final year. so if you cannot master the language you are writing in, you do not graduate. there are at least three courses i can think of that dealt with the art of language usage...not just in english btw. so saying that they did not have the right training is no excuse. the subs are there to put the final touches on copy, not to re-write it.

"phenominum" - Holy crap! People lamenting the demise of proper English and they use a word like that? WTF?

Is the strangling of the language due to Afirmative Action? And please don't blame the Nats - again!

readable - is there such a word? isn't it legible?

Actually, readable was what I meant and so that is what I said.

Oxford: readable, adj 1. pleasant and interesting to read. 2. legible. readability,n.

Having said that, you’re right in a way. The sentence wasn’t a great one. Let’s see:
“… tweaked to become readable at least, if not particularly interesting.”
‘Readable’ and ‘interesting’ cancel each other out because in order to be readable it would have had to be interesting, by definition, and no amount of grammatical tweaking could have done that.

My god, I’m so sorry. I’ll have to go back to school. Thank heavens I’m not a professional writer of any sort.

In the spirit of things, though, it’s only fair that we have a look at that heading of yours: “hmmm - stop pointing fingers. Charity begins @ home, Mr/Mss READABLE!”
Is @ a word? And did you mean Miss, Ms or Mrs?

I grew up being told to read newspapers to improve my understanding of the English language. "and when I see such terrible use of it,I wonder if my English is good enough!!"

Some really great journos are terrible writers - the subs heads must roll if there howlers make it into print (Eek should that be subs' heads or sub's head's aaaragahh .... )Grammar etc. matters in ALL 11 languages

Unfortunately, English is the language most media institution use in South Africa. Not everyone speaks the language 24/7 and not everyone has English as a first language. They, therefore, will not be as good as the first language speakers. Writing proper English does not make one a good journalist. Spelling and grammar are very important but that is not all there is to journalism. Ability to identify news, story angles and presenting the story or 'good spelling and grammar' are qualities a good journalist should have too. If second or third language speakers of the language are to be judged on only spelling and grammar, then I think only two, if any, blacks and afrikaaners will be journalists in this country. Sub-editors don't have to re-write the story, they can always change 'its to it's'. They'll do it just once, the next time the poor black or afrikaner will know what's right. Please do not judge me on my "grammar and spelling' if you want to respond, just take the facts.

kaf..

*sigh* It's so sad isn't it. Although as a professional writer the more English gets dragged through the mud, the more rare my skills become and it's simple economics then. Everytime english is murdered in print or whatever medium, my stock goes up. At this rate I'll be charing R100 per word in five years time. :)

I'm sure, after your diatribe, you must have read Lyne Truss' "Eats shoots and leaves". Essential reading for all us purists. However, it's sad that we are even labelled purists, finicky, anal, or elitists. I always find it amusing when I am accused of using "big words". The poor imbeciles that utter this puerile reference, never seem to understand that the accusation is more a reflection on their waxing ignorance than anything else.

they should call you those names more often. thay suit you....