Do we tolerate poor standards too easily nowadays?

[Trenchcoat]

Here is a article I saw today:

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-avdiivka-tonenke-1886956

It states,

"Russia has since burned through its tank arsenal. In February, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a U.K.-based think tank, estimated that Moscow had lost more than 3,000 tanks in two years of war — more than its entire pre-war active fleet. Ukraine's tank losses, although impossible to verify, are believed to be even higher at more than 7,000."

Anyone see I assume the not so deliberate mistake?

7000?

That seemed a fishy number to me seeing that Russia had lost 3000 tanks and the loss of Russian tanks has been much talked about because of their high losses of tanks and in fact is noted in this article. So I googled and it turns out the 7000 should really be 700:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/17/after-two-years-of-war-ukraine-still-has-a-thousand-tanks/

As this article correctly tells us.

It's not just the extra double tap of the '0' though. This writer for Newsweek we can see from her writing firmly believes that Ukraine has lost tanks at that much higher figure. Why on earth she didn't stop to think why Ukraine had so many more tanks than Russia to lose in the first place and how that came about I don't know

At the bottom there is a little spiel on her 'expertise' yet she seems to be failing badly and is oblivious to any clue as to how each side even roughly stacks up against each other!

So for an internationally renowned journalist magazine is this really the standard that should be acceptable? How on earth did this get published online without the expert of the piece actually bothering to do even the basic checking of the facts as I had done. Online it is easy these days, what sort of a standard is this?

Years ago when everything was published in print I couldn't imagine seeing such stupidly bad errors but now it seems that no one cares or is bothered. Any idiot with the right contacts can get a job writing for such high profile journalistic magazines, claim they are an expert and right complete rubbish as we see here. This person is clearly not the expert they claim to be nor has any competency in writing articles.

This isn't the first time I've seen such issues online. I don't claim any greatness in the command of the English language but then I am not writing for internationally renowned journalist magazines. I've seen obvious and bad spelling mistakes and all sorts that are obviously not predictive text typos in many top brand news sites. The odd grammar or slightly misspelt word I can understand but some mistakes are so glaringly obvious and bad that back in the day most school kids would be embarrassed. Yet apparently the article goes out with not even a glance over

Anyone else noticed the poor state of article writing these days? It just seems that people that aren't even competent are getting into top news jobs that they are totally unsuitable for and then calling themselves "experts" lol.

[krimster2]

Trench,
there are no absolute values for this number of lost russian tanks, just a "range" of estimates from various sources

back in the day, journalism was WHAT/WHERE/WHO/WHY
but we have corporate journalism now, of which Newsweek is a good example,
for corporate media, facts are no where near as important as "market share"
Fox News is a good example of that

these are some of the "bugs" in capitalism
but like Trumo, capitalists are all busy diggin their own graves, this process is only gonna intensify in the future
I probably won't attend the funeral but send flowers and a simple, but tasteful card

[Trenchcoat]

Here is a article I saw today:

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-tank-losses-ukraine-avdiivka-tonenke-1886956

It states,

"Russia has since burned through its tank arsenal. In February, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a U.K.-based think tank, estimated that Moscow had lost more than 3,000 tanks in two years of war — more than its entire pre-war active fleet. Ukraine's tank losses, although impossible to verify, are believed to be even higher at more than 7,000."

Anyone see I assume the not so deliberate mistake?

7000?

That seemed a fishy number to me seeing that Russia had lost 3000 tanks and the loss of Russian tanks has been much talked about because of their high losses of tanks and in fact is noted in this article. So I googled and it turns out the 7000 should really be 700:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/02/17/after-two-years-of-war-ukraine-still-has-a-thousand-tanks/

As this article correctly tells us.

It's not just the extra double tap of the '0' though. This writer for Newsweek we can see from her writing firmly believes that Ukraine has lost tanks at that much higher figure. Why on earth she didn't stop to think why Ukraine had so many more tanks than Russia to lose in the first place and how that came about I don't know

At the bottom there is a little spiel on her 'expertise' yet she seems to be failing badly and is oblivious to any clue as to how each side even roughly stacks up against each other!

So for an internationally renowned journalist magazine is this really the standard that should be acceptable? How on earth did this get published online without the expert of the piece actually bothering to do even the basic checking of the facts as I had done. Online it is easy these days, what sort of a standard is this?

Notice they have now corrected the article, the paragraph now reads:

"Russia has since burned through its tank arsenal. In February, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a U.K.-based think tank, estimated that Moscow had lost more than 3,000 tanks in two years of war — more than its entire pre-war active fleet. Russia's tank losses are estimated at even higher by Ukraine, at more than 7,000."

So they are now saying it is an estimate for possible Russian tank losses of 7,000 rather than an estimate of Ukrainian tank losses of 7,000 as in the original paragraph in the article before it was corrected.

Why someone writing for such a high prestige magazine doesn't regard it as worthy to read first what they have written and that it is correct to what they want to say is beyond me. Such an error in the process of writing is first year undergraduate student level if that. Seems there is less proof reading in these high prestige news magazines than there is on this casual forum board, lol. What is happening to society?

[Trenchcoat]

Looking at her profile I think it says it all:

http://www.newsweek.com/authors/ellie-cook

A case of all looks no brains me thinks, lol

Yes a sweet pretty looking girl and likely came across well at interview I would assume 🤔

I wondered what happened to the serious ugly dudes that applied steep highly in the domain of intellect and experience??? 🙄

[krimster2]

"I wondered what happened to the serious ugly dudes that applied steep highly in the domain of intellect and experience??? 🙄"

they usually end up writing books about their specialized knowledge domain
but, AI programs will be using ALL their books as raw training material

and pretty Miss Ellie will be replaced by an AI generated persona that 'fronts' for the LMM AI, that makes Ellie look pretty lame
this is all coming MUCH sooner than you think

[Trenchcoat]

"I wondered what happened to the serious ugly dudes that applied steep highly in the domain of intellect and experience??? 🙄"

they usually end up writing books about their specialized knowledge domain
but, AI programs will be using ALL their books as raw training material

and pretty Miss Ellie will be replaced by an AI generated persona that 'fronts' for the LMM AI, that makes Ellie look pretty lame
this is all coming MUCH sooner than you think

Yes I kind of got the impression the article was rehashed from other articles and she messed up there on rehashing it. Like you say in future they will get AI to do the rehashing for them and lay off their staff just leaving their pretty photos as the front for the article.

So many times I look under the news column when I google for news and find the same news from different outlets. It's like they just all go out and copy off someone.

Uni's these days are rife with people cheating using essay writing services, academically poor graduates walking across the stage with Firsts as a result but just not up to the task aside from getting jobs where they continue their cheating. Never used to be that way decades ago.