Are writing errors inevitable?

I am someone who will always spot mistakes in newspapers, leaflets and signs. I am one of those pedantic perfectionists, but even I have to admit to having made little mistakes a few times. That's human nature and arguably unavoidable, even with the best will in the world.

However, when I spotted a particularly glaring error this week in an article on the BBC news app, I would say this was surely just the product of a sloppy rush. The issue: The space between two words must have been at least six times wider than usual, and it wasn't because the text had been justified, or for any other logical purpose. Shocking! That's the sort of error that makes me think "Come on BBC, what are you paying these clowns (I mean reporters) to do?"

Annoyingly, I now can't find the article itself, but I deem that to be a pretty bad proofreading mistake. Our eyes read and recognise words by looking at the difference between the white background and the contrasting shape of the letters, meaning that a massive block of unnecessary white really jumps out of the page like this even at a quick glance. Yes, that was a deliberate mistake!

Can errors in nationwide news ever be excusable?

After spotting the recent issue above, I had an amusing little dive online to see what other major errors or bloopers have made it to print over the years. I discovered an article where The Guardian's whole focus was to acknowledge their mistakes. Love that they have taken ownership of that! Typo negative: the best and worst of Grauniad mistakes over 200 years | The Guardian | The Guardian

They have produced some absolute classics over the years and are sensible in admitting that they have flaws just like the rest of us mortals. Here are some of their classic clangers:

• "Irritable bowl syndrome" - Oops!

• That well-known Shakespeare play "The Taming of the Screw" - What?

• And in 2007, the corrections column contained an error when responding to a previous error. I love the delicious irony that the word "misspelled" was "mispelled"

When even the corrections cease to be correct, what will become of us? That did tickle me. Interestingly, this article is several years old, so I'm now wondering which editing gaffes have happened since! Maybe there will be another update soon.

Can we prevent human error?

First off, spell checkers and grammar checkers are widely available on any electronic device that a writer might use to craft their piece. Fair enough, not all mistakes will be caught by the coloured wiggly line we have all come to rely on, but the majority will.

When a spelling error is in fact another correct word, it may then be missed of course. That is surely an excusable thing at times, but we should still factor in that all writing should be read back at least once by the writer themselves, if not by others too, before ever publishing.

The Guardian, for example, is a hugely well-regarded and long-established news company. If the (presumably) highly intelligent and experienced writers there can make errors, then so can anyone. Yes, there may sometimes be a rush to go to print, but taking time to check and check again is important at any level of writing. Human error is inevitable at times, but it's not an excuse for sloppiness.

Does any of this really matter?

Part of me would love to say "Yes, it really does!" because of my meticulous nature, but the reality is, the rules of writing are evidently changing all the time and that means that we need to cut everyone some slack in this fast-paced world. Not too much slack, mind, but a little is appropriate.

The article I read with way too many spaces between words was still readable and I understood its point entirely. No meaning was lost along the way, no unfortunate double meanings or offence popped up, so all was well. As long as we can understand what each other are trying to convey, then isn't that the point of language when it all boils down?

Go on then, tell me if you spot any mistakes and I will repent accordingly!