The Internet has brought us many new and useful tools, but one of the glaring downsides is that it has undermined journalism in multiple ways. One response of the media has apparently been to either eliminate editing or significantly diminish its role in vetting articles before they are posted. Examples continue to multiple.

The latest glaring example comes from ABCNews.com that published a story about two US Navy sailors accused to spying for China. https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-us-navy-sailors-arrested-allegedly-spying-china/story?id=101990144  While the content of the story is important and interesting, there is no obvious reason why it had to be rushed to “print” without competent checking of the writing.

Examples:

• Jinchao “Patrick” Wei, a 22-year-old petty officer 2nd class, was arrested Wednesday and charged with espionage — more specifically, conspiracy to and committing the communication of defense information to aid a foreign government.

Conspiracy to committing?  Conspiracy to the communication?

• Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao, of Monterey Park, California, was also arrested Wednesday, by FBI and NCIS agents, and is charged with conspiracy and receipt of a bribe by a public official, officials said, according to Zhao’s indictment.

“According to Zhao’s indictment” does not belong at the end of the sentence. It should be placed at the beginning.

• Zhao, 26, worked at the Naval Base Ventura County in Port Hueneme and had an active U.S. security clearance who had access to classified information, officials said.

As written, that sentence says that it was the “security clearance,” as a “who” rather than a “what,” that “had access to classified information.” I am reasonably certain that the sentence was intended to say that Zhao had the security clearance that gave him access to classified information.

• His indictment states he had access to material classified as secret, as did Wei, who was born in China and became a U.S. citizen in 2022 as he was allegedly also sending information to his handler.

I’m not sure what to say about that sentence. The concluding phrase, “as he was allegedly also sending information to his handler,” is lost in space. With slight changes, it probably belongs after “secret.” The sentence would be improved by creating two sentences from it, one about the indictment and one about Wei’s background. Sigh.

• “The alleged conduct also represents a violation of the solemn obligation of members of our military to defend our country to safeguard our secrets and to protect their fellow service members.”

What happened to the punctuation? Properly written, that sentence would read this way: “”The alleged conduct also represents a violation of the solemn obligation of members of our military to defend our country, to safeguard our secrets, and to protect their fellow service members.”

• It was not immediately clear if either Wei or Zhao had retained attorneys who could comment on their behalf.”

I admit I am nitpicking a bit here, but wouldn’t that sentence read better this way: “It was not clear whether Wei or Zhao had retained attorneys who could comment on their behalf.” OR, even better, “It was not clear whether Wei or Zhao had retained an attorney who could comment on his behalf.”

• Wei is alleged to have passed along imagery of the USS Essex, provided the locations of various Navy ships and provided dozens of technical and manual for systems aboard his ship and other Navy ships.

Open your blue books and answer this question: How many manual or manuals was Wei claimed to have shared?

• “The case against Mr. Zhao is part of a larger national strategy to combat criminal efforts from nation state actors to steal our nation sensitive military information,” Estrada said.

Obviously, “nation” should have been “nation’s,” the singular possessive form. I suppose it’s possible that Estrada misspoke and said only “nation” but, if so, the authors should have inserted “[sic]” after the word to indicate their awareness of the mistake.

There are other problems with the piece but eight is enough to make the point. A final note: the article lists five contributors to the piece. Remarkably, none of the five apparently saw or raised any of the issues I have identified. If they did, they were ignored, which may be worse

Lest I be accused of picking on ABC, I hasten to assure you that problems like these are evident throughout Internet-published journalism.

Examples: click-bait titles are rampant.

Blue Jays Acquire Angels’ Star Shohei Ohtani In Blockbuster Trade Proposal That Would Instantly Shake Up The MLB

Maybe I’m being unfair, but I believe that headline in https://www.totalprosports.com/mlb/shohei-ohtani-angels-blue-jays-trade-rumor/ was written to lead the reader to believe that the Los Angeles Angels had agreed to trade Shohei Ohtani to the Blue Jays, which is about as likely as my being recruited as a pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers. In fact, the article makes clear that the acquisition of Ohtani was merely a proposal from the Blue Jays.

Another example of failed/missing proofreading:

The bomb squad “determined that the small grenade was insert,” according to a sheriff’s office update. [Miami Herald, July 11]

I have many more examples but, frankly, they are buried in my emails. In preparing to write this post, I realized that I have more than 9,150 emails in my Inbox. Many are routine items (“Your Amazon order has shipped”) and there are hundreds, possibly thousands, related to Donald Trump and his many crimes against the Constitution, the law, and humanity. One of these days I “plan” to find time to review them all and either act on them or delete them. One fine day.

Meanwhile, c’mon ABC and the rest. Do better.