The British press and metric units

The press shapes the way we think. This is an indisputable fact.

It is also very well established that the press is a contributor to the metric muddle through its generally inconsistent use of measurements. There is a tendency for the right-wing press to favour imperial units, whilst the left wing press favours metric units, but this is not exclusively the case and there are exceptions on both sides. The one thing that is true across the political spectrum of the press is that there is a considerable inconsistency in which measurements are used.

The press is not to blame for the metric muddle, to blame the press would be unfair. Indecision by successive governments has been the problem for the past half century. This inaction has led us to live in what can only be described as a 'fudge'. A nation whose official system of measurements is metric, but with so many exceptions, that it's simply a mess.

This mishmash of measurements has not just affected if and when metric units are used, but also how they are presented. The imperial system uses abbreviations. The metric system uses symbols. Symbols such as %, £, €, Ω, etc. are international and therefore language-independent. Abbreviations, such as HST or TGV however are dependent on language (English, French).

The benefit of symbols is that they are less open to misinterpretation. It was on this basis that there was international agreement for a set of standard symbols to be defined for metric units regardless of language. A kilogram (kilogramme if you prefer) has the symbol km irrespective of how its spelt in any language.

Using a mix of imperial and metric units blurs the distinction between the uses of symbols and abbreviations, leading to incorrect pluralisation of metric symbols or using abbreviations for metric units (typically analogous to imperial abbreviations) rather than the correct symbols.

Image source: UKMA

This is an area where the British press could do better.

The Telegraph unsurprisingly has a preference for using 'common British weights and measures' and refers to metric symbols as 'abbreviations'. However, the style guide refers to correct symbols - reassuring, given the image on the page of the Telegraph's style book dedicated to numbers, measures and money has a picture of a weight in kilograms. Speeds are not mentioned here, but the when referring to kilometres per hour, the Telegraph has a tendency to use both the abbreviation kph and the correct symbol km/h.

The Guardian style guide rightfully mentions that, 'We use the metric system for weights and measures; exceptions are the mile and the pint.' The style guide also specifies that km/h should be used and not kph. Where metric speeds are used, there's little evidence of the use of kph slipping through the cracks after around 2015.

The BBC uses both units of measurement and also incorrectly refers to metric symbols as abbreviations. The BBC news style guide suggests that in UK stories, imperial should be used first with metric conversions. The guide also makes correct reference to the use of km/h, although you don't have to look too far to find reference to kph or even kmph.

The Economist, whose style guide is not freely available (but it is available for purchase), tends to use predominantly metric measurements. However, it's no secret that they almost exclusively and incorrectly use kph, rather than km/h.

The UK Metric Association has published a style guide which, naturally, goes into great detail about the proper use of metric units, symbols and prefixes.

The only way to kill off this inconsistency is to complete the changeover. Imperial units will linger, and that's fine. But we need to get our symbols right.