Does correct spelling matter to journalists?

Duz acurit spelling mattur 2 U?

In this digital age of texting, tweeting and time-stressed journalism, has proper spelling gone the way of hot type?

As language evolves, should spelling too? Should the language of texting become common parlance? Are u ok with “1” for “won,” “L8r” for “later,” “UR” instead of “you’re”? A heart for “love?”

In a provocative essay published in this month’s Wired magazine, entitled “It’s Tyme to Let Luce” writer and professor Anne Trubek argues against the “outdated dogma” of standardized spelling. She contends it’s time to “loosen our idea of correct spelling.”

Language evolves, she said, “and spelling evolves, too, as we create new words, styles and guidelines.

“Consistent spelling was a great way to ensure clarity in the print era,” she said. “But with new technologies, the way that we write and read (and search and data-mine) is changing, and so must spelling.”

While Trubek presents a compelling argument for the “terrible mess” of the English language and its many inconsistencies in spellings, and tells us that the notion of consistent spelling is a “fairly recent invention” (albeit, an invention dating back at least to the 1770s), I can’t imagine the conventions of proper spelling disappearing from journalism any time soon.

Certainly, spelling does matter at the Star. Our readers remind us constantly that spelling matters.

Misspellings and typos in the newspaper and online can provoke more passionate reader indignation than just about any other journalistic transgression. Sometimes disproportionately so.

“You subject your readers to multiple spelling mistakes,” a reader recently told me in an email criticizing the Star for misspelling “anesthesiologist.”

“Your newspaper is supposed to be a model, not a source of mistakes which are careless and avoidable,” he wrote. “Journalism is not only about what you write but how you present it to the reader.

“This is totally unacceptable for any type of publication, spell checker or no spell checker.”

This week, a reader who identified himself as “a retired professor living in Portugal” emailed me about a Star sports blog in which the possessive “its” was misspelled as the contraction “it’s” three out of four times in the piece. Another reader wrote this week to point out that a reporter wrote “sighting” when she meant “citing.”

In recent weeks, readers have pointed out that the Star wrote about a movie “premier” instead of a “premiere” and referred to the “forward” of a book instead of the “foreword.”

Clearly homonyms — those words that sound the same, but have different meanings and spellings — are a challenge. To sometimes hilarious effect (not affect!), the Star has confused stationary and stationery, fazed and phased, principal and principle, aide and aid, pored and poured. These commonly misspelled words always need double-checking.

Is this just niggling nitpicking? Trubek believes the reason we have rules or rather, “arbitrary contrivances” governing spelling is simply “snobbery.” She argues that new technologies, such as smart phones and tablets, are “speeding the adoption of more casual forms of communication.”

But certainly people expect more from journalists than the casual newspeak of texts and 140-character tweets. As my son, 19, chided me in a message he texted in response to my hastily typed, error-ridden text message: “Nice grammar. I thought U were an editor.”

Media credibility studies consistently tell us that spelling errors erode journalism’s credibility. We know public trust depends on journalists getting the details right.

I don’t see how any journalist can buy into Trubek’s argument that correct spelling no longer matters.

As Mallary Jean Tenore of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies aptly concluded in an online report about Trubek’s essay, “journalists value accuracy.”

“We want to get our facts straight and spell words right — not just to avoid corrections but to offer as much clarity as possible to the reader,” she wrote.” Once you start using misspelled words — even if they’re commonly accepted in the world of text messages and instant messages — you lose a segment of your audience that may not be as familiar with these words. “

Even Wired published a rebuttal to Trubek’s piece written by one of its own copy editors.

“What exactly is it about digital media that demands the abolition of spelling rules?” Lee Simmons wrote. “Are we saying that professional news sites should spell words in any way that strikes their mood or fancy?”

In her essay, Trubek asks: “Who shud tell us how to spel?” answering with, “Let’s make our own rules.”

But she also seems to undermine her own thesis: “Standardized spelling enables readers to understand writing, to aid communication and ensure clarity. Period.”

Indeed. That’s why accurate spelling matters.

Does spelling still matter to you? Log on to my new Toronto Star public editor Facebook page and let’s discuss.

publiced@thestar.ca