Anyone else disgusted by the frequency of typos on BBC News?

On a different note, never thought of writing to a company about a typo they made

Another day, another story, another typo! I love reading the BBC News website, but over the last few years it has become littered with typos. Does anyone read through these stories before they are posted? Today the story about the cruise ship in Italy has a picture with the caption:
'The Costa Concordia was carrying more than 3,2000 passengers when it ran aground off the Italian coast'.
Further down the video is captioned:
'Cabin steward Deodato Ordona says the ship suddenly began to tlt.'
They're so glaringly obvious that it's shocking that the author him/herself didn't catch them regardless of whether an editor read through it before it was posted.
I have seen worse than these, I wish I had a log. The majority of errors have been in the main article, not the caption. Sometimes its not just spelling or repetition of a word; I have seen mangled sentences that are so bad there is literally no way the author could have read over it and missed it.
Who else is disgusted by not only these typos but the carelessness behind the scenes that they are so clearly a sign of?
EDIT: Link to the article here.
Also, another typo: But if the party, which has just one MP on Scotland, pushes too hard, it risks increasing support for independence, through accusations of a "London/Tory fix". (Link here.)

Saying 'disgusted' was of course hyperbole, but it got people talking. What really annoys me are the typos that show that the author literally has not read it through even once. (For example, '3,2000', that just sticks out like a sore thumb.) We get taught from the age of five to read our own work before handing it in and yet the professionals are not doing this!

The BC news website is crap. It's not the typos but the lack of good grammar. For example headlines more often than not refer to things like:

"Italy Cruise Ship Capsizes" When it should be "Italian Cruise ship Capsizes" or "Cruise Ship Capsizes off Italy"

I wrote to them and the excuse was it saves space for mobile users. Which is rubbish because in many cases there is virtually no difference in the length of the title. They are dumbing down to compete with Sky.

Can you actually give us an example of a headline from the BBC which contains the same information but can be written 'better' using the same number of characters (or less characters)? Copy editors have this thing down to an art, so I'd be surprised if you can find one quickly.

They could have easily used "Italian..." instead. They are just lazy slobs.

Too lazy to preview your posts and make sure they appear properly?

'Italian' is longer than 'Italy'. Conserving characters is important for mobile devices. There's nothing lazy about that. On the contrary, it involves making an extra effort to make the content easy for mobile users to read.

You must lead a pretty sad life if you get upset by typos on the state TV's propaganda broadcasts!

2 extra characters? Nonesense. If the "Afghan women" headline is OK for mobile devices then surely they could use proper grammar for the "Italy" one.