Can't read it wrong

[kkrell]

Ooooh, today's postal mail brought me a full-color, glossy menu for a local Asian restaurant. I am interested in the "Luch Special" category (11am-4pm), because that's where the deals are. Of course, in small print at the bottom of the last page, the menu says "Not responsible for typographical error."

At least they spelled "Soup" right.
"Wor", what is it good for?

[benhall.1]

... and here is a live, prime example. It's an article about the junior doctors' dispute. I would really like to read the article linked to below, partly because the subject matter is of huge interest here in the UK at the moment and partly because it's an article in the Financial Times, a paper for which I have a great deal of respect. But I can't get very far through this article because of the poor use of English. Apart from getting pulled up short by "specialty", which is a word I don't recognise in British English - but I eventually managed to get past that - I come to a complete halt at the following:

"Doctors who are working more than 40 hours per week, or who work outside normal hours, will see their rate of pay increase by between 20-100 per cent depending on the number of hours they work, what share of those hours makes up of their overall week, and when the hours are during the day."

I have no idea what that means. Honestly, I simply cannot work it out. And that means, frustratingly, that I can't finish the article. It's worse than that: I'll continue to worry about the meaning of that mish-mash of words all day.

Here's the link to the full article:

https://www.ft.com/content/b39896ca-0c5 ... z4InarYKA5

[kkrell]

I cannot read the original article without subscribing.

Here's my interpretation: Doctors will receive a premium pay rate ("overtime" pay) for hours worked:

1) for excess hours worked beyond a standard 40-hour work week. A higher rate per hour begins at hour 41.

2) outside of standard shift hours (perhaps considered to be 9am-5pm?). Call them in at 9pm, then pay them more for those "special" hours. They might receive an even higher pay at, possibly 3am. This would be probably be regardless of whether they have worked a regular 40 hour week. Akin to calling a plumber in on a Sunday, a holiday or in the middle of the night.

Here in the U.S., we might refer to this as "regular pay" and "overtime pay". Overtime pay might, for instance, be "time-and-a-half" for odd hours of the night, "double-time" for holidays. Your quote from the article indicates a range of from 20% above the normal rate, to double the rate, depending on the (perceived) hardship. At one factory where I worked, the day shift (8am-4pm) workers received their base rate; a higher rate was given to swing shift (4pm-Midnight) workers; and those working the graveyard shift (Midnight-8am) received even more pay.

[benhall.1]

I cannot read the original article without subscribing.

Here's my interpretation: Doctors will receive a premium pay rate ("overtime" pay) for hours worked:

1) for excess hours worked beyond a standard 40-hour work week. A higher rate per hour begins at hour 41.

2) outside of standard shift hours (perhaps considered to be 9am-5pm?). Call them in at 9pm, then pay them more for those "special" hours. They might receive an even higher pay at, possibly 3am. This would be probably be regardless of whether they have worked a regular 40 hour week. Akin to calling a plumber in on a Sunday, a holiday or in the middle of the night.

Here in the U.S., we might refer to this as "regular pay" and "overtime pay". Overtime pay might, for instance, be "time-and-a-half" for odd hours of the night, "double-time" for holidays. Your quote from the article indicates a range of from 20% above the normal rate, to double the rate, depending on the (perceived) hardship. At one factory where I worked, the day shift (8am-4pm) workers received their base rate; a higher rate was given to swing shift (4pm-Midnight) workers; and those working the graveyard shift (Midnight-8am) received even more pay.

Thanks for trying to explain it to me, Kevin, but I'm honestly not sure whether that's what they meant or not - the English is so bad it's impossible for me to glean any real sense from it.

Sorry you can't read the whole article. I used to have an issue reading their articles where it said I had to subscribe; I haven't subscribed, and yet I can now read all of their articles. Odd.

[david_h]

I don't think it makes sense. It reads as if it has been condensed down out of something longer with essential parts left out and ones that are superfluous without the full text left in. Condensed by someone who had not got the meaning clear in their head.

I think it means 'average hourly pay for overtime and/or unsocial hours will increase by 20-100% depending on when it is and what proportion of the work is overtime/unsocial hours'. But we don't, for example, know if the hourly rate for an extra hour more than 40 is more or less than that for an hour of a full weekend shift.

Maybe there is an algorithm that whatever fills the pay packet can apply but the journalist doesn't understand. I think not understanding is forgivable. Writing gobbledegook isn't (the complaint of the OP about journalists ); writing about something you don't understand isn't (my complaint about journalists).

Is it that not knowing what it means that makes the rest of the article unintelligible or that annoyance prevents you reading further?

[benhall.1]

Is it that not knowing what it means that makes the rest of the article unintelligible or that annoyance prevents you reading further?

There's a certain amount of annoyance but, for the most part, the thing that prevents me from reading the rest of any article with a passage like this in it is that I genuinely don't know what is meant. Because of this I can't follow the argument, and I find the whole thing descends into meaningless drivel. And by "meaningless" I really mean just that: it could be about anything from that point on in the article. I simply lose the thread.

To summarise: it's probably 10% annoyance and 90% worrying about the lack of meaning and the confusion that causes me.

[david_h]

Hmm. I am normally pedantic about detail and like to follow the logic. But, without seeing the article, this is the sort thing where I would accept some fuzziness in the information and read on. For a while at least.

By the way, I think we were in close proximity over the weekend but I didn't get chance to say hello and check that it was you.

[Nanohedron]

...in small print at the bottom of the last page, the menu says "Not responsible for typographical error."

At least that part was error-free. I wonder if the restaurant is also not responsible for bad food.

"Doctors who are working more than 40 hours per week, or who work outside normal hours, will see their rate of pay increase by between 20-100 per cent depending on the number of hours they work, what share of those hours makes up of their overall week, and when the hours are during the day."

I was able to make sense of it, but it took 2 or 3 readings, and that's no good. The word "bloated" comes to mind. Try this:

Doctors will see a pay increase of 20 to 100 percent if they work more than 40 hours per week, or if they work outside normal hours. This increase will depend on the number of hours they work, on the share of extra hours in their overall week, and when those hours are during the day.

[benhall.1]

...in small print at the bottom of the last page, the menu says "Not responsible for typographical error."

At least that part was error-free. I wonder if the restaurant is also not responsible for bad food.

"Doctors who are working more than 40 hours per week, or who work outside normal hours, will see their rate of pay increase by between 20-100 per cent depending on the number of hours they work, what share of those hours makes up of their overall week, and when the hours are during the day."

I was able to make sense of it, but it took 2 or 3 readings, and that's no good. The word "bloated" comes to mind. Try this:

Doctors will see a pay increase of 20 to 100 percent if they work more than 40 hours per week, or if they work outside normal hours. This increase will depend on the number of hours they work, on the share of extra hours in their overall week, and when those hours are during the day.

Your 'version', if it is a version, is intelligible. But I'm still left wondering if that's what the writer meant, since I can't make the words mean what your words mean. Your words not only make sense in themselves, but they also convey something which seems like a sensible scheme for calculating doctors' pay. And maybe it's what the writer of the FT article meant. Maybe.

Anyway, by now I guess you get the gist of my problem. And it really shouldn't be my problem.

[Nanohedron]

But I'm still left wondering if that's what the writer meant, since I can't make the words mean what your words mean.

And funnily enough, that is the only meaning I could glean out of all the garble. Ah, well. As you say, who knows? When no one does, that is bad writing, pure and simple.

Again I ask: Are there no proofreaders any more?

[david_h]

I am not convinced by Nano's version.

'Rate of pay' should be money per unit time. The units mentioned are the week and the hour. Being paid 20% more for working 41 hours rather than 40 seems unlikely unless they are all getting a pay rise of almost 20%. If it is pay per hour then it makes most sense if it is the pay per hour for the overtime/unsocial hours; if it were average pay per hour the 20% more for 41 rather than 40 hours still seems to apply.

Is this coming from a government statement for public consumption? If so, on the recent track record of politicians on informing the public, it may not have made sense at source.

[crossing]

[Nanohedron]

I suppose I could have better written "a 20 to 100 percent increase in their rate of pay", or something to that effect. I admit that I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that "rate of pay" was a pleonasm, so I pared it down. Not to nitpick, but for me, "rate of pay" comes down to pay in any case. Still, if the distinction here is more relevant than not, I would have been more precise had I known it, 'cuz that's how I roll.

In any event, I was just trying to make the unreadable readable overall, nothing more. It's something I'm suited to, but a knack for readability doesn't carry with it expertise in the details. Why would it? I was able to work structurally with the material at hand, but when it comes to readability, details for the most part are just something you shuffle. The message available to me in the original draft pointed toward the result I came up with, and that's all. I am not an accountant by any stretch, so I leave the actual crunching of numbers to others. I can always correct accordingly.

If you give me bad information written badly I can usually re-write it for better readability, but I cannot correct bad information if I don't know it's bad. That's a different matter altogether.

[david_h]

If you give me bad information written badly I can usually re-write it for better readability, but I cannot correct bad information if I don't know it's bad. That's a different matter altogether.

My concern is that what you wrote makes sense. The original does not. Your sense may not be correct. Your well-written text may mislead people. Redundant information can be used for obfuscation.

Many people can 'read it wrong' so lazy journalism and poor editorial standards may lead to people being misled. I think PR departments, even for respected advocacy groups, take advantage of this to get headlines that they would not go so far as using themselves.

(it's hard to discuss the detail of that example without straying towards UK politics)

[benhall.1]

lazy journalism and poor editorial standards may lead to people being misled

Not quite in line either with the rest of your post, David, or with my OP, but there was what, to me, was a passage of seriously lazy journalism on the BBC breakfast show this morning. They were talking - a lot and for a very long time - about the images and "sounds" sent back by Juno, the probe orbiting Jupiter. They (Charlie and Naga) kept referring to the marvellous sounds, and I honestly think that's what they thought they were - the sounds of winds around Jupiter; you'd hardly notice that, in fact, these were electro-magnetic disturbances which had been translated as sounds so that non-science people could understand them. There were in fact no sounds, but lazy journalism seemed to obscure that fact.

[david_h]

I don't watch the programme so don't 'know' the presenters. However, presenters of that sort of programme have to cover a huge range of material so I don't expect them to know about everything. The failure there, I think, is in the research/production team for not briefing them properly. I am generally impressed at how good the best TV and radio journalists are at understanding what is said in a live interview and responding in real time to things I would have to go way and think about.

That said, I abondoned the BBC Today programme at 7 am on most days in the 1990's when one particular presenter almost always 'got the wrong end of the stick' in the scientific/techncial/medical item that usually precedes the weather forecast. They kept giving those items to that presenter for year after year and the presenter never seemed to notice that they didn't understand.

But being accidentally misled about winds on Jupiter isn't likely to have the impact of being accidentally misled about something that might get us into (or not get us into) a war or bombing campaign, or accepting (or not) our government's support (or otherwise) for one side (or other) in a dispute in a foreign country, or supporting (or not) a development that might (or might not) have a major environmental impact.

(and yes, I know my sentences are too long, but I did leave out referendums)