Oops…more language problems at the BBC:
Friday saw the start of the Chinese new year, with this being the year of the horse.
Unfortunately the BBC News’ subtitle system didn’t understand the memo quite right, and instead declared this the ‘year of the whores,’ too much the embarrassment of the channel.
“Welcome to the year of the whores. People around the globe celebrate,” read the subtitles.
Sex workers I think we call them these days BBC!
Like Svile used to be when you employed him, and eulogised him when he went down below to the BBC basement in 2011.
I am looking forward to the day when one of the bbc’s so-called journalists is captured by our muslim friends and incarcerated for years. That would be much more entertaining than Eastenders.
Have you forgotten about Alan Johnston?
No.
The BBC can’t even claim that the ticker operator was dyslexic. There are no “w”s in the word “horses.”
Most programmes use the speech recognition system unless its a scripted film or drama . Watch any news channel & the subtitles come up quite often with amusing words .
Are we sure the BBC wasn’t using speech recognition software?
I was presuming this was automated phonetic-related, which makes one wonder why it’s done via speech rather than copy-typing. My Dad worked with a guy in the Navy who could send and receive Morse at the same time, and I’m pretty sure a good stenographer can crank it out, accurately, with little time lag. Especially if there’s a delay to allow a proofer to ride shotgun.
Rather clearly, as with much BBC output, much that is stuffed into the system is barely ever checked as or once it goes out.
Good value though.
As an aside, in sending this the other day to a mate, my ISP Orange wouldn’t send the message as I had used the word BBC… sorry ‘whore’ in the subject line.
It’s done the same with a few BBC emails I’ve tried to forward, the potty-mouthed national treasures that they are.
The higher quality CC services do use live human stenographers. I’ve worked with a couple, and they’re excellent. But those services are more expensive than speech recognition software (and other media outlets use it for sports, at least) I was really just wondering if the BBC was merely forced to take the cheaper route due to nasty budget cuts inflicted upon them by Tory enemies. They’ve used that excuse on more than one occasion.
No they’ve been using speech recognition for donkey’s years. This sort of thing happens a lot.
But you’re right it is nevertheless surprising they haven’t tried to blame it on ‘the cuts’.
Careful!
Perhaps you should check your facts before ‘presuming’?
‘much that is stuffed into the system is barely ever checked as or once it goes out.’
That would seem rather difficult with ‘live’ subtitling, but if you say so.
This would explain one I spotted a few months back – the Egyptian President – More Sea.
That’s what Osama has been experiencing lately: more sea.
Perhaps another Naughtie slip for the Beeboids to laugh off. Just as they found ‘Jeremy Cunt’ so amusing…
Yep but note they have never ever made the same slip with Labours Tristram Hunt, no matter how much they have the rich prep boy on ???
I’ve been pointing out these faux pas for years. It had always seemed to me that they used some sort of rudimentary speech recognition software overseen by a human. Often incorrect transcriptions were re-worded a few seconds later.
Of course some were not and they were the interesting ones, like this one.
What actually happens is barking mad. They actually have a chap who listens to the TV and repeats what he hears into a microphone. His speech is then transcribed by computer!!!
Given that newsreaders work of a teleprompter you’d think that that text would be used, altered if necessary, for the sub-titles. But then the BBC couldn’t waste money on Red Bee Media could it?
Red Bee Media incidentally is a company formed by hiving off a BBC department and is/was run by ex-Beeboids.
Still not as funny as Ed Milliband being subtitled as The Ed Miller Band, and the Archbishop of Canterbury as The Arch Bitch of Canterbury.
He comes a poor third after The Glenn Miller Band and the Steve Miller Band though.
Here’s a couple of videos about how subtitles work below.
Its a mix of stenographer & voice recognistion software:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
They can be hilarious sometimes. I remember a news report about the a Nadal win at Wimbledon. Apparently ‘Nadal eventually emerged victorious after 5 hard sex’.
They even manage to fuck it up on catch-up. I watched Charlie Brooker (still watching in the hopes it might become funny again, nothing to report so far – if anything it’s getting worse by the week) and they somehow translated ‘Paddy McGuinness’ as ‘Pad Eat My Guineas.’ I made a complaint online, no response yet. It’s been three days.
Has to be said though that I’m pretty sure ‘jackarse’ is a mistake as well. Don’t forget that ‘jackass’ is actually an animal, it has nothing to do with the word ‘ass’. Maybe the origin of ‘jackarse’ took that into consideration but I hear it used a lot by people who genuinely mistake it for a term for the rear.
None of this makes the BBC’s mistake any less stupid, I just thought it was worth pointing out since you just know a perennial Beeb apologist like Scott would jump all over this if he’s sober enough to see straight.
F**the Beeb…way too deep…jackarse because some arse at the BBC cocked up…play on words…year of the horse…jackass…jackarse.
Damn glad to know it’s a real word though…..thought I just invented it!
I suppose the complaint, concerning the BBC, is that there should always be someone checking the spelling of computer-generated subtitles.
The subtitles depicted in the OP are so obviously wrong you have to ask whether the BBC employ anyone with a pass in GCSE English language these days, for the job of checking.
(Assuming a pass these days holds any weight.)