[Closed] BBC spelling shocka

Probably written by a girl. No wonder they pay them less.

Are they talking about Brexit?

Simple, but yes, obvious mistake. Who cares.

Was it a Brexit article?

Might seem like a small thing, but it's the thin end of the wedge.

If we don't care about spelling on TV anymore, wat's nxt?

They have probably automated it, so spell 'cheque' thinks its fine 🙂

Christ, don't ever watch with subtitles

Guardian's TV channel init.

If we don't care about spelling on TV anymore, wat's nxt?

Don't know, people fixating on more important things instead? 😉

Bloody hell, I thought presenters saying "somethink" was bad enough. 2 spells in one short sentence is terrible. And this [i]is[/i] important!

The person writing the sub titles should have nothing more important to think about than getting it right.

Just watched the original. It’s correct.
So it’s either been sorted out or someone’s been messing.
I suspect the latter because there’s no comments on the item post and the great British public are very quick to pick up on things like this
It was a specific edit for the Facebook page which is captioned so you obviously don’t need the sound up to watch. It’s not the same team that subtitle the programmes.

Makes you think...

The person writing the sub titles should have nothing more important to think about than getting it right.

They’re automatic done by voice recognition then sometimes if possible checked a later stage.

No its as was I watched on the BBC Twitter feed this am.

https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast/status/950981795440414720

The person writing the sub titles should have nothing more important to think about than getting it right.
They’re automatic done by voice recognition then sometimes if possible checked a later stage.

Not the social media stuff.

They probably still use it but it should be checked before release, I guess this one got through.

What would Jews Holland make of this I wonder?

[i]No its as was I watched on the BBC Twitter feed this am.[/i]

Jeez, posting on here as a humorous grammar nazi (are we still allowed to use that word?) thread is one thing, but actually posting on the Twitter feed, which is actually an item about a lad with no legs, is just.. just... er, well, how things are these days I suppose. 😡

(and not just one twit! Over and over! 😥 )

They’re automatic done by voice recognition then sometimes if possible checked a later stage.

Are you sure? A couple of years back my understanding was taht it was still humans doing the subtitling with an increasing degree of computer assistance

Not the social media stuff.

They probably still use it but it should be checked before release, I guess this one got through.

I think in this case Martyn knows better Drac.

Are you sure? A couple of years back my understanding was taht it was still humans doing the subtitling with an increasing degree of computer assistance

Much of the live subtitling is still done by computer and it is often laughably bad.

Pre-recorded content is usually done by humans though AFAIK.

(I wake up very early sometimes)

The BBC presenter at 0500 this morning said that french actress Catherine Denueve had come out publically "defending men's right to hit women".

I was duly outraged, until the correction ten minutes later to "men's right to hit on women".

Now I am not sure if I should be outraged, or why.

Much of the live subtitling is still done by computer and it is often laughably bad.

Again, it wasn't when I was close to it. BBC were doing live stuff with re-speaking
in 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31035232

Channel 4 still talking about using stenography for live
http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq/name/why-are-your-subtitles-sometimes-done-live/id/400288894

maybe it's a pun cos he breaked his legs?

We shouldn't really be droring any conclusions about this until we know tha fax.

zippykona - Member

Are they talking about Brexit?

I'm sending you herpes in the post.

Obviously a problem with the [url=

Syntipatico system[/url].

I was watching something at the weekend (might have been Countryfile but not certain) and the subtitler spelt Anglesey 'Anglesea'!

[img] [/img]

From Simons_Nicolai's link above:

However, live subtitling, as seen mostly on the news, sporting events and other programmes which are going out live, requires an entirely different skillset - a person with good ears, a clear speaking voice and specially 'trained' voice recognition software.

These live subtitlers sit in a soundproofed room, watching the TV feed and 're-speak' the words from the programme clearly and deliberately into a microphone. The computer, which over time has come to accurately recognise the live subtitler's voice, then translates their spoken words into text on screen.

Stenographers are sometimes used but, for the most part, this is how live subtitles are generated. A lot of time and effort goes into training the voice recognition software to as high degree of accuracy as possible, and into augmenting this with subtitling software which tries to pre-empt foreseeable errors. Unfortunately, given the infinite variety of the English language, human error, commentators misprouncing words, the subtitler mishearing or stumbling verbally, having a cold which makes your voice sound different, and the fallibility of the voice recognition software, occasional unforeseeable errors do creep through. Corrections are made where possible but sometimes, overall, more information is lost to the viewer during a live broadcast from stopping to make a correction than from just keeping calm and carrying on.

The subtitles for the web clip above will have been produced for the clip viewed on the web, not the TV version, presumably done by the programme production team who do also the graphics which tell you people's names and locations, etc.

Subtitlers are mostly rabid pedants and grammar Nazis who would hang themselves with their headphone lead at the end of their shift if they thought they'd broadcast a sentence about break leavers.