Call it the correction that launched a thousand tweets.
Over the years, many errors and corrections have spidered their way around the Internet—beef panties, anyone?—but never before has a newspaper error inspired its very own Twitter hashtag. In that respect, this Washington Post correction for a tone deaf error is one of the most notable corrections of the year:
A Nov. 26 article in the District edition of Local Living incorrectly said a Public Enemy song declared 9/11 a joke. The song refers to 911, the emergency phone number.
Sure, not everyone follows hip hop, though Public Enemy is one of the most important music groups of the last couple of decades. But a journalist could have easily verified that “911 is a Joke” was released in 1990, years before 9/11. In short, it was a preventable, embarrassing error. As such, commenters took little time to notify the paper of the error. Just hours after the article was published, “ieducated” wrote that, “… the song isn’t about 9/11 the song is about dialing 911 the police…listen to the song!”
Wrote another commenter:
I can’t believe such a careless and ignorant error was printed. The song “911 is a Joke” is from the multi-million selling album “Fear of a Black Planet”, WHICH CAME OUT IN 1990. It’s about calling 911 is a waste of time, not about 9/11!
The story appeared on November 26, but the Post didn’t offer a correction until a week later, on December 3. (Coincidentally, the Post’s ombudsman dedicated his most recent column to chastising the paper for taking too long to handle requests for correction.)
On December 4, Jake Tapper tweeted the correction, Mike Masnick wrote about it at Techdirt, and the Huffington Post also published an article. Other coverage followed. With that, the correction appeared to reach the apex of its popularity.
Then along came @phontigallo. That’s the Twitter account of Phonte (Phonte Coleman), a member of the Grammy-nominated hip hop group Little Brother. Just after 11 p.m. on Sunday, he tweeted a link to the Post correction and noted, “This inspired my next trending topic.” From there, he unveiled the #washingtonpostcorrections hashtag, which invited people to come up with amusing imagined corrections related to famous hip hop songs and artists. He started things off with these:
Soon, people were chiming in and a meme was born. Twitter users continued to churn out imagined Post corrections into the early part of this week. Some of my favorites:
@iivoreee: ‘Fear of A Black Planet’ determined to be an album and not a critique of a struggling dating site.
@jsmooth995: George Clinton has assured us his roof remains intact, and he takes fire safety quite seriously
@corones: An earlier article incorrectly stated that Chicago was not Frank Sinatra’s kind of town. In fact, it is.
@corones: An earlier article incorrectly stated that Sir-Mix-A-Lot dislikes big butts. We regret the error.
@justinmpeterson: We regret mistakenly asserting that Coolio had been spending most his life living in a gangsta’s paradise.
@justinmpeterson: We would like to clarify that if you got a problem, yo, Vanilla Ice will not actually solve it.
Also on Twitter, Post reporter J. Freedom du Lac (@jfdulac) took note of the trending topic:
Not surprisingly, our “9/11 is a joke” correction has become a meme. And some of the #washingtonpostcorrections are hilarious.
One person also used the hashtag as a vehicle for media criticism:
@streethistory #washingtonpostcorrections is still more accurate then the #washingtontimes
(We’ll forgive him his “then” error…)
Corrections are often amusing. This was a great example of that fact. But the use of a correction to create a hashtag is also a powerful reminder that the public knows what corrections are, and why they exist. The commenters on the Post’s story didn’t hesitate to demand a correction, and Twitter users had no problem using the correction format and tone as a means to elicit humor. It speaks to how ingrained the correction is in the minds of citizens and media consumers.
The birth of the #washingtonpostcorrections hashtag once again sends the message that people expect corrections. News organizations also shouldn’t be surprised to see their mea culpa take on a life of its own.
Correction of the Week
“An interview piece – Keep chic and carry on, 5 December, page 28 – said that Alexandra Shulman divorced the writer Paul Spike when she was 40. Rather, that was when they separated, divorcing some years later. And the article should have said that she and her current partner got together on “a weekend” some months after her father died, not “the weekend” after.” — The Guardian (U.K.)
This infamous meme also exemplifies how the mainstream press often neglects smaller communities and cultures. To mistake 911 for 9/11, and to have such a delayed correction, emphasizes how the publication does not serve the interests of all the public. I guess some corrections are more equal than others.
Speaking of corrections, CJR forgot a few of mine:
"A report mistakenly identified Too Short as married. He's a Player for Life." #washingtonpostcorrections"Trey Songz was incorrectly cited as having #inventedsex."#TigerWoods told Biz Markie "She's just a friend" "There are only six members of the 69 Boyz" #washingtonpostcorrections
And my favorite:
"Gary Webb wasn't lying, the #CIA did sell crack" #washingtonpostcorrections
You can always get breaking news, classic one-liners or my random musics by following Reginald James @reginaldjames on Twitter.
#1 Posted by Reginald James, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 01:19 PM
Speaking of corrections, idiot:
"Coincidentally, the Post’s ombudsman dedicated his most recent column to chastising the paper for taking to long to handle requests for correction"
that second "to" should be a "too"
Oh, the irony.
#2 Posted by WTF, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 04:24 PM
to WTF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
Doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of silly FACTUAL errors which are considerably more important than grammar.
#3 Posted by JV, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 05:22 PM
The actual correction, while appropriate, is in reality a very minor error, as newspaper errors go. (Read Craig Silverman's Regret the Error blog for some real humdingers!) It's not like the actual error had any lasting implications, sullied someone's good reputation, got facts and figures grievously wrong, was a product of gross misrepresentation, misstated an important policy, or anything of the sort.
So the whole thing is profoundly silly and inane, thousands of Twitter twits wanting to show how hip they are to hip hop, I guess, starting with Tapper. Predictably, a hashtag is formed which immediately becomes unreadable and unfollowable (to anyone with a real job) with the ridiculous and the inane. Then the journos discover they can write up a 500-word piece on this nonsense and skate free to the next deadline, by copy-and-pasting a few of the more amusing 140-ch quips and adding a couple of predictable "insights" again demonstrating how kewl they are cause they "get" this "twitter thing." You can hardly call this "media criticism" Craig.
The Twitter rage reminds me a lot of the CB radio craze back in the 1980's; a useful form of communication gets overwhelmed by chaff such that any potentially useful communication is in short order drowned out by mindless chatter; addicts spend most of their day monitoring, chattering, hyperventilating about trivia like this otherwise very uninteresting correction, out of all proportion to its importance, such that their jobs and their perspectives fall by the wayside. The form of communication itself becomes so bogged down with garbage that it is rendered useless. What's next, three versions of Smokey and the Bandit in 140-ch quip? Tearjerking #1 hit C&W songs of legendary-but-mysterious Twitter heros tweeting people to safety? Tweetty Bear, anyone?
#4 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 07:23 PM
@Tom -- I'll tell you why I think Craig's piece was good media criticism.
Implicit in the fact that the Washington Post didn't issue a correction for some time concerning one of the most significant, domestic political protest songs, and one of the most significant and smartest lyrical talents to come out of early hip-hop, is the notion that Washington Post does not count a top, African American, hip-hop artist and activist worthy of accurate coverage.
The song "911 is a Joke" is and was important in raising awareness that the U.S. health care and emergency services and police systems are broken. "911 is a Joke" addresses the issue that the quality of care and protection provided to citizens in neighborhoods that are wealthy, and predominantly populated by white people, surpasses the quality of service provided to the citizens in neighborhoods that are perceived to be poor and predominantly populated by people of color.
What kind of democracy is that? What equal rights?
Washington Post should be ashamed, from an arts reporting and political reporting perspective, that it implied this song was anything but great, and in paritcular great at making a searing political criticism through a new art form, with humor, and great beats. The song did not make a point about terrorism. And yes, the artist who recorded that is brilliant enough to have something worthwhile he'd probably gladly say on the record to Washington Post, if they dared to care what a black artist thinks.
No matter what you think of Twitter as a platform, you should recognize their error did in fact "get facts and figures grievously wrong." GRIEVOUSLY!
For your review, the lyrics page:
http://www.publicenemy.com/index.php?page=page5&item=3&num=58
I suggest you go buy an MP3 of that song and reconsider the role of artists in improving human rights.
#5 Posted by Lokol13, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 09:22 PM
@Lokol13,
I wasn't criticizing Silverman's media criticism, I was critical of his characterization of the twitter storm as "media criticism." I'll take your point about the importance of the song. But I stand by my contention that the twitter storm was ridiculously overblown.
That kind of mundane error is much like when the Reaganites coopted the Springsteen song "Born in the USA" for their patriotic mantra, completely misunderstanding the essence of the message in THAT song back around 1980. It set off laughter and ridicule among Springsteen fans, yes. But no one else took it all that seriously. I'm not such a fan of Washington Post, but hell I see worse stuff than that on their pages every single day, which they DON'T bother to correct.
It wouldn't surprise me to discover that CB radio freaks had a radio-storm about the Reaganite gaffe, but then maybe not. But certainly not high dudgeon outrage as your GRIEVOUSLY Democracy! Equal Rights! Human Rights! Ashamed! I mean, get a grip! It's a song, dude. Work yourself into a lather about something that matters, why don't you?
#6 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 10:01 PM
@Tom -- I also think the Twitter hashtag / meme thing *was* media criticism, wisdom of the crowds and funny. Regardless of my annoyance (which you share, and even take further) with the short attention span theater that is Twitter.
#7 Posted by Lokol13, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 10:05 PM
@Lokol13
Well, I really don't think that hashtags is "media criticism" except that they are in high dudgeon ridiculing the person who, I guess, didn't remember the particulars of the song. That, to me, isn't the same thing as legitimate media criticism. It was more of a storm meant to loudly and publicly demonstrate "oh! how much kewler I am than this person, because I know the song and hahaha, the journalist doesn't." Like anyone gives a crap whether 40-year-old professional people have a deep, deep understanding of an 20-year-old hip hop song.
#8 Posted by Tom, CJR on Fri 11 Dec 2009 at 10:17 PM
@Tom -- It wasn't a cooler-than-thou turnout on Twitter. It was a "we know Washington Post isn't addressing this obvious correction, so we'll keep pointing that out in a fun way, instead of a cruel way, in a public forum" turnout.
Or a turnout that said: "journalists who don't know something to be true should not write them as fact into a story," even if it's "just" art or a song.
Songs are important. Artists are important. Music and art history is important.
40 somethings who grew up with protest songs in their childhood like Hurricane, the Bob Dylan track protesting a false murder trial and capital punishment, or Peter Gabriel's Biko, raising the issue of apartheid and police brutality to public consciousness and helping bring about an end to apartheid, do know that. Not to mention a huge number of punk songs, and 60s and 70s songs protesting nuclear and other wars. Or folk and blues songs protesting "separate but equal" like "Titanic."
A host of many others that mattered either locally, politically, internationally and to multiple generations should be required listening for someone like you. You have assumed songs don't matter and aren't important. And that something that feels silly, witty or artistic, but contains criticism in it, like the hashtag corrections meme, can't make a difference.
Don't even get me started on comedians who did bits that raised political issues. I'll spend all day enjoying their clips on YouTube. But Bill Hicks, George Carlin and Chris Rock come immediately to mind.
I'd gladly make you a mix if we were "real life" friends and try to inspire you this way. And I don't think I'm cooler than anyone.
#9 Posted by Lokol13, CJR on Sat 12 Dec 2009 at 10:03 AM
@Lokol13
Please don't assume that I think that songs "don't matter and aren't important." That is not the case at all. You keep going off on tangents about the value of music itself. To be clear, I am ridiculing the piling on of a poor arts and music journalist by a bullying gang of middle-aged professionals-who-tweet over what is ultimately a very insignificant error.
It's easy to pile on a poor arts and music journo over an insignificant, minor error, but the lies of people who actually matter, not so much.
I'd like to see the same kind of outraged twitter storm over the outright, highly documented lies and dishonesty out of the political shop and editorial pages of the ethically-sullied Washington Post. How about a Twitter pile-on of George Will or Betsy McCaughey? Their lies and dishonesty *matter.* But, *that* would be too dangerous to the professional-who-tweets, wouldn't it, to take on someone who actually matters?
You have to admit, it *is* kind of pathetic to see all these middle aged tweeters in their passionate outrage over a newspaper error about a 20-year-old hip hop song. I highly doubt many of them paid much attention to the song itself at the time. I don't recall anything like the passionate adoption of the messages of hip hop by the elite college crowd, who are now middle-aged-urban-professionals-who-tweet. Just the opposite, in fact. I wonder if Sister Souljah is amused.
#10 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 12 Dec 2009 at 02:34 PM
@Tom -- Well, then why don't you start up a hashtag meme on each of these, on Twitter, yourself?
"...the outright, highly documented lies and dishonesty out of the political shop and editorial pages of the ethically-sullied Washington Post. How about a Twitter pile-on of George Will or Betsy McCaughey."
See what comes of it? I'll keep a look out for your hashtags! Maybe you could even comment here as to whether or not you do start them up.
Also, sorry if I've misinterpreted your previous statement: "I mean, get a grip! It's a song, dude. Work yourself into a lather about something that matters, why don't you?"
I didn't intend to go on a tangent. I now understand you are a fan of the arts, and pop culture, too, and don't discount them as unworthy of factually accurate reporting.
My personal favorite "update" er correction-ish of late has been Al Gore in Slate (and Slate gets props for adding this, I hope I don't come across as dissing them):
http://www.slate.com/id/2237789/
Now, where's the "update" from WaPo on Sarah Palin's op-ed that says:
"there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd"? Oh, and do you think she actually wrote the Op-Ed? I mean, shouldn't bylines also be fact checked?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402.html
ARGH!
#11 Posted by Lokol13, CJR on Sat 12 Dec 2009 at 07:53 PM
@Lokol13
I'm here to report that I won't be starting up any hashtags on George Will or Betsy McCaughey! Not sure they would catch on with the Twitter crowd (out of line to call them twits and twats? It's too tempting). Anyway, I don't really think twitter storms are an effective way of shaming big newspapers into better journalism. I may be wrong about that. Would CB Radio chatter have shamed the Washington Post and New York Times into better Iran Contra coverage? Doubtful. Actually, I hope I *am* wrong about that; nothing else has worked with the ethically-challenged Washington Post.
No, I don't think Palin wrote her own OpEd; in fact, I know it. If you read her I'm-quitting-in-the-middle-of-my-term speech, which she *did* write, you will deduce that coherency, even coherency in support of dissemination and outright lying, is not her writing style. I don't know if it isn't the common practice, though, of having a professional write up an OpEd, though.If someone ghostwrote the OpEd, I wouldn't be outraged. Bylines and datelines aren't always what they seem, as we learned from Maureen Dowd, pretending to write from Texas while she was in New York.
ASIDE: Craig, "beef panties" was good, even great, but my favorite Regret the Error correction is About that “greasy-haired twat” remark.
#12 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sun 13 Dec 2009 at 01:31 AM
What's left out is as critical as an error. $3 Million Extravagant Spending by UC President Yudof for UCBerkeley Chancellor Birgeneau to Hire Consultants - When Work Can Be Done Internally
These days, every dollar counts. Do the work internally at no additional costs with UCB Academic Senate Leadership (C. Kutz/F. Doyle), the world – class UCB faculty/ staff, & the UCB Chancellor’s bloated staff (G. Breslauer, N. Brostrom, F. Yeary, P. Hoffman, C. Holmes etc) & President Yudof.
President Yudof’s UCB Chancellor should do the high paid work he is paid for instead of hiring expensive East Coast consults to do the work of his job. ‘World class’ smart executives like Chancellor Birgeneau need to do the hard work analysis, and make the tough-minded difficult, decisions to identify inefficiencies.
Where do the $3,000,000 consultants get their recommendations?
From interviewing the UCB senior management that hired them and approves their monthly consultant fees and expense reports. Remember the nationally known auditing firm who said the right things and submitted recommendations that senior management wanted to hear and fooled the public, state, federal agencies?
$3 million impartial consultants never bite the hands (Birgeneau/Yeary) that feed them!
Mr. Birgeneau's accountabilities include "inspiring innovation, leading change." This involves "defining outcomes, energizing others at all levels and ensuring continuing commitment." Instead of deploying his leadership and setting a good example by doing the work of his Chancellor’s job, Mr. Birgeneau outsourced his work to the $3,000,000 consultants. Doesn't he engage UC and UC Berkeley people at all levels to examine inefficiencies and recommend $150 million of trims? Hasn't he talked to Cornell and the University of North Carolina - which also hired the consultants -- about best practices and recommendations that will eliminate inefficiencies?
No wonder the faculty, staff, students, Senate & Assembly are angry and suspicious.
In today’s economy three million dollars is a irresponsible price to pay when a knowledgeable ‘world-class’ UCB Chancellor and his bloated staff do not do the work of their jobs.
Together, we will make a difference.
#13 Posted by Milan Moravec, CJR on Wed 23 Dec 2009 at 04:22 PM
This is a funny story. So many fuss because of some wrong words. Well, it seems to me, we all make slips and sometimes we say something what we didn't mean. It happens. And it is wrong to pay such an extreme attention to the words even the words of a journalist.
With best regards, Steve http://eventsearch.us
#14 Posted by Steve, CJR on Sat 17 Jul 2010 at 06:59 AM
University of California Berkeley: Loyalty is dead: long live loyalty Public and private organizations are into a phase of creative disassembly where constant reinvention and adjustments are constant. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being shed by Chevron, NUMI, Wells Fargo Bank, HP, Starbucks etc. and the state, counties and cities. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley are firing staff, faculty and part-time lecturers. Estimates are that the State of California may jettison 47,000 positions.
Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee.
Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised job security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees’s fitting in, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employeer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee employment and lifetime careers, even if they want to.
Organizations that paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ are now forced to break the implied contract with employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled.
Jettisoned employees are finding that the hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place.
What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other? The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability.
The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor. Loyalty is dead – get used to it.
#15 Posted by Milan Moravec, CJR on Tue 3 Aug 2010 at 07:12 PM