I very much disagree with this video, and I think Stephen would too if he thought more about it. The fundamental problem with the argument is that once you say it’s ok not to follow the rules for small details, the slope drops off right into ignoring them altogether.
Honestly, this line is completely untenable. He’s simply overacting to a particular brand of negative person and in the process he makes an absurd argument.
[ EDITED: Added more content below from my response to comments. ]
Yes, I really liked the video as well. And I do strongly agree with the idea put forth, i.e. that meaning matters more than delivery.
My objection is a practical, real-world one. In short, I think that you’d be troubled to find a situation where someone who “should” know how to write well (using the rules) would be given a free pass by you, me, or Stephen Fry if he were to give the answer “you knew what I meant, and the content was good.”
That’s asinine, and unacceptable.
You wouldn’t accept it, and neither would Stephen Fry. And I don’t think you should, either. People who don’t put forth effort to make it easier for others to consume their communication are selfish and rude–and that takes away from the quality of their work.
I reject the notion that the ideal state is to ignore presentation. I reject it outright. I agree that if someone is pretty much spot on, and obviously knows their stuff and has great content–but makes a mistake or two of the subtle variety–then people who outright attack their mistakes are hollow, vapid assholes. No doubt.
But don’t take that to the extreme (a favorite liberal activity) by insisting that it’s ok to ignore the rules if your content is strong. That’s simply absurd.
If you don’t believe me, try going reading some content that fits that description and see how long you can tolerate it. It’s not the mistakes that will get you, it’s the fact that they don’t care about the mistakes. And that’s the problem.
The accuracy matters, too–as static on the line precludes pure transmission of ideas–but that’s ancillary compared to simply “putting forth the effort to make it easy for your consumer”. It’s the disregard for the reader that makes this behavior unacceptable, combined with the fact that once you relax the rule in principle there is no clear line regarding how far you can take it.
Do yu seee wut I meen? Wuts rong with thiss?