The Australian Financial Review claims to be one of the better newspapers in the country. But as is apparent from what follows, the paper lacks sub-editors who can spell or who have any knowledge of grammar.
Fairfax Media has an almighty big style guide, but the AFR seems to have thrown it out, along with any competent sub-editors.
All this is taken from a single article titled “Malcolm Turnbull wins support to water down race hate laws” on 21 March. Just imagine how many screw-ups there are in the entire paper. And the paper still complains it is losing readers. Guess why?
In “an” move? Surely that should be “in a move”?
“And the strengthen”? That “the” is dangling there like a limp dick in the breeze. Cut it off.
“Portrayed” is Mrs Malaprop at her brilliant best. The word is “betrayed”. And “ths” one takes it is “this” with the vowel dropped en route to the screen.
Pretense, not pretence. And yanked, not ranked.
Will? No, it should be would. Usage is always hypothetical and possible.
“The legislation” is singular. It cannot be later described as “they are”. The paragraph should read: “The legislation for the change will be introduced into the Senate first and has little prospect of passing because it is opposed by Labor, the Greens and NIck Xenophon.” And it’s Nick, not NIck.
Outbursts of anger. Not outburst. Plural as opposed to singular. Got it?
Not sure how Abetz is being described in the plural. Or did somebody include the obnoxious Cory Bernardi without naming him?
Shadow minister for citizenship and what??? And surely, one uses past tense in sentences like this – had not has?
Here, the word “to” seems to have gone AWOL.
I know Steve Ciobo is a dunce, but should one leave even his sentences dangling like this?
A comma in time saves nine. Just saying.