Spelling errors and poor grammar in mainstream media news content are probably left deliberately, for an unwholesome purpose.

Recently we've noticed an increasing number of spelling errors and poor grammar in online news reports. These aren't amateur blogs, they are supposedly first-rate publications with long histories of professionalism.

Many readers commenting on articles have pointed out these errors, expressing disgust at apparent shoddiness. The majority of them are glaring mistakes that could easily be corrected with decent proof-reading. So, why do they occur?

The immediate assumption is that with a 24-hour news cycle and reducing staff, there's no longer time to properly proof-read. Lately, mainstream media's goldmine has come under enormous attack from social media channels, costing them huge chunks of advertising revenue. So, mainstream news corporations have found themselves in survival mode.

They are also in fightback mode, which is probably the key to the whole thing.

Simply put, I believe that corporate news editors are deliberately leaving in and possibly injecting spelling and grammar mistakes into their content in order to make it look and feel more friendly to younger and less educated consumers. Sum1 sggstd that wud b a gr8 idea. So, they went for it. But, why would they do that?


News media use the principle of 'native content' to lure advertisers. This amounts to advertisements that match the look and feel of news content. The modus operandi here is that readers and audiences who are emotionally engaged with the content of an article or segment are then soft targets for advertising which seamlessly hooks into emotions that are already primed.

Young media consumers are a primary demographic for this process because they have money and they're willing to spend on enjoyment. Far more so than senior citizens, for example. They are also filled with hopes and dreams, which advertising chronically leverages.

A problem arises in the fact that today's young people have not been adequately schooled in the necessity of regimented spelling and grammar. Life is fast-moving for them. Information transfers happen at a rate and volume that is utterly astonishing compared to the pre-mobile era.

So, while texting and commenting on-the-fly, today's young people cut corners. They abbreviate. They also spell phonetically, with wide variations from one individual to the next. Even if individuals know how to spell, correcting errors takes time and effort that they are not willing to invest in aligning with a principle that doesn't mean much to them.

When it comes to adverts placed within native content, the ideas and opinions being expressed aren't the only dynamic. There's also the presentation to consider. For example, vocabulary needs to match that of the target group in order to engage them more closely.

I suspect that in recent times, this has also extended to spelling and grammar. Errors no longer matter and may actually help with consumer engagement, because people who don't care about accurate spelling feel more at home with mistakes in what they read. That in turn converts to advertising effectiveness, which wins a greater share of advertising budgets.

Previous generations were alerted to the dangers of poor spelling and grammar. These can lead to communication misfires that before today have sent planes into mountains and corporations bankrupt.

News media have in the past been the world's greatest champions of accurate spelling and grammar. That was true even when they were telling blatant lies or apportioning blame according to their own agendas. If they have abandoned that status in order to keep their advertising goldmines in full production, with profits flowing fast, they bring shame upon themselves. Their obligation is to promote high standards in society, not to assist with dumbing down.

Note that I have no proof of this beyond deductive reasoning and knowledge of the native content principle. But to me, it ain't hard to figr out. Theirs method in this madness.