A popular Australian horse-racing forum entered into a heated debate earlier this week after one reader raised the topic of some journalists not double-checking their copy for mistakes before going to print.

I assume it was one of the journalists who ultimately leapt to their (own) defence and said that if people had an issue with mistakes they could exercise their democratic rights and not read the posts at all.

It's a fair comment ... but to be honest, in today's commercial environment, there is no excuse for poorly drafted copy. Everyone works to tight deadlines and yes, you always want to be first to break the next BIG piece of news and yes, of course people make mistakes on occasion - but if sites rely on sub-standard stories courtesy of poor grammar then site readership will eventually suffer. There are plenty of sites with great copy and not too many errors. The Bloodhorse, Stallions Daily Bulletin, ThoroughbredInternet.com all come to mind.

Magazines should follow the same advice - there is one in particular at the moment that seems unable to spell check or sub their articles before the magazine is sent to print each month and the standard is fast deteriorating. In many ways an editor becomes the brand of a magazine and if poor quality becomes a trademark ... then why would people want to advertise with you?