Machines aren't perfect, either. People rely too much on spell-checkers. They're great tools, but only when they're combined with human vigilance. Even so, they can't prevent every typo.
And running spell-checker does not, as many people think, give you license to stop paying attention. That's what happened to the writer of a document I edited recently in which Giuseppi and Spielberg were spelled right numerous times, but other times in the same document they were spelled wrong. Obviously, the writer was just carelessly clicking "ignore" every time spell check questioned one of those names.
But, no matter how soft your view of typos, there's no excuse for what the CNN editor saw. That misspelling was not the result of human fallibility. It was the result of carelessness and a chain of workers with an "it's not my job to check" mentality.
When spelling counts — say, for example, when you're putting words in stone for posterity — vigilance is mandatory.
Here are some of the errors I consider most insidious. Based largely on real mistakes by professional writers, this isn't a list of most common typos like "their" for "they're" and "affect" for "effect." These are lesser-known and even sneakier ones that can get past professional writers and even spell-checkers. Be on the lookout for them.
Ceremonies don't take place at an alter. They take place at an altar. Here's one I caught recently in an article I edited. A high-end fashion designer does not have "a certain cache." He has cachet. Also, a designer doesn't have a flare for using color. He has a flair.
I once read an article about a cancer survivor in which the interviewer asked what it was like "in the throws of your illness." She meant "throes." That's a lot like "floes" — the big chunks of floating ice that should never be spelled "flows."