Oh dear – journalism undergraduate workies at the BBC? Or maybe just someone under 30 editing the Radio 4 programme pages.

From the current Woman’s Hour Drama page, a classic “who’s/whose” muddle. Why, oh why, oh why, BBC…

Which is exactly what life should be like…

Naomi Jacobs, of Manchester, recalled nothing after 1992, did not know she had a son and thought she was sitting her GCSEs.

The story featured prominently in The Sun the Daily Mail and the Metro– and the details and the way the story was told were spookily similar. Naomi falls asleep dreaming of her teenage schoolboy crush, then wakes up in a scary world of computer games, mobile phones, a weird old lady looking out at her from the mirror and – worst of all – an 11-year-old boy who claims to be her son.

Apparently, Naomi was suffering from Transient Global Amnesia – a condition brought on by stress. A visit to the doctor, some TLC and time spent with her diaries helped her “piece together her memories”, which started to return after eight weeks, but which have taken her three years to recover fully.

So, what’s wrong with this story? Apart from the fact that the coverage is innumerate – Naomi is either 34 or 35, and she fell asleep in 1992 and woke up in 2008, which the Mail counts as 17 years, but many others might count as 16. Where can those one in three pupils leaving primary school struggling with the three Rs look for a career? Try journalism!

Oh – and that the Wikipedia description of Transient Global Amnesia claims it lasts less than 24 hours, and anything over that means the condition is something else. Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a proper, authoritative source. But it at least raises a question that might be worth investigating further.

I’m not saying the story isn’t true. I don’t have enough information to do that. And that’s the problem. The only source for this story is Naomi Jacobs herself. And she has a book to publicise – a novel (interestingly) based on the experience she says she had in 2008. 

Come on – where is the supporting evidence? Where is the comment from a medical source confirming her diagnosis and explaining the effects it had? (I do like the Metro’s last line: “doctors believe that over time she should fully recover” – oh yeah? Doctors you’ve actually spoken to? I don’t think so.)

This smells of a book launch PR campaign – hence the identikit coverage – and no one in the media can be bothered to actually stand the story up. Presumably because whichever PR company that supplied the material is seen as reliable (if anyone actually cares).

This just isn’t good enough. The whole point about “professional” journalism is that it is supposed to fact check and corroborate stories – not just parrot whatever someone says who has something to sell. I mean – that’s what all the rubbishy bloggers are supposed to do.

This is a great piece of PR – but it’s lousy journalism. Have we simply forgotten how to do it?

Apparently, Lindsay Lohan had her sights set on the Black Swan role that did for Natalie Portman. The Mail expresses surprise that “Lohan still thinks her acting chops are up to the standard of Oscar-winning actress’ such as Natalie Portman”.

Yes, confusion over the plural form of words ending in “s” or “ss” has finally reached that bastion of old-fashioned education values, the Mail. Looking forward to seeing reports of politicians being given “free reign” and newspapers being forced to “tow the line” soon.

Also, it’s lovely to see that, despite its lapse into modern punctuation, the Mail is still strictly enforcing its house style of calling female film stars “actresses”, when the luvvies switched to the gender-neutral “actor” years ago.

*Freelance Unbound house style is for a singular grocer’s apostrophe. Please refer all debate on this to Ranting Subs…

Unlike most other commentators, I’m not taking issue with the ridiculous idea of paying a machine for the privilege of counting my money.

But I believe we must stand up against the incoherence of its selling message: “Turn your change into cash! – it’s as easy as 1-2-3”

Why this is utter nonsense:

Change is cash. Last time I looked. You’re suggesting our change – made up of coins –  is something else. Get a dictionary.

Oh, I see – small coins are fiddly and inconvenient. So – exchange your fiddly shrapnel for a handy £10 note. Well, that’s OK.

No! Here’s the 1-2-3 bit:

1. To start, touch the green button on the screen or on the keypad below
2. Put coins in tray
3. Redeem voucher at this location today

So – what we’re doing is taking cash, putting in into the Coinstar machine, getting in exchange not cash, but a voucher, then standing in a queue to exchange it for other cash (or paying towards your shopping maybe). And paying 5-10% in commission for the privilege.

That doesn’t sound easy to me. Especially given Morrisons’ under-staffed checkouts. It sounds like a palaver. What sounds easy is spending the coins themselves – as, you know, cash.

The worst thing is that many people will read this and think it makes sense. And does anyone know why this business model actually works? Baffling…

As many retailers benefit from a Royal Wedding consumer spending spree, it is claimed the extra bank holiday will cost the wider UK economy billions of pounds.

Gosh. Who has done this piece of rapid, top-flight economic analysis? Ah, it seems to be the CBI. Oh wait, from four years ago.

Obviously that’s why Sky couldn’t use the SEO-dynamite headline they probably wanted: “Royal Wedding to cost economy £6billion” – even they knew they couldn’t spin a press release from four years ago about public holidays in general into a CBI story about the Royal Wedding in particular.

So glad we are maintaining professional journalistic standards.

[Spotted by Soilman]

It makes me feel a bit better about the current council’s inability to proofread its roadsigns anyway…

Here’s the original:

The car is fairly pedestrian-friendly as there aren’t any hard surfaces directly beneath the bonnet

Her straight-down-the-line edit is admirable, but a bit dry: “There are no hard surfaces directly below the bonnet, minimising danger to pedestrians in the event of a crash.”

She says: “If anyone can sum it up with both beauty and sense (possibly in haiku format, for extra kudos), I’d be interested to hear it.”

You have your mission. A guide to English language haiku form is here. Well, what else would you do on a Friday?

Oh no, it’s 15,000 rand (“about £1,400”). Again, according to the BBC, which quickly updated its story.

It’ll be interesting to see if the 5,000 rand figure spreads through the internet, as aggregation does its work, or if it’s been nipped in the bud.

And where did that come from in the first place? The coverage seems to have all come from a court report yesterday from the South African Press Agency. But from early on each of the two figures has been quoted as the hitman’s fee.

The 15,000 rand figure seems to be the winning number. Let’s hope that’s because it’s correct. This is the kind of story that journalism – and the police – need to get absolutely right.