The first winner was David Hummerston of the West Australian. Here’s a sample of his work:
Old Sparky: The compilers and suppliers of our On This Day column deserve to learn a lot more about electric execution. The recidivist column wrongly stated that the first electric chair execution took place on July 7, 1890. In fact, it was Wednesday, August 6, 1890 in New York - ironically then known as The Electric City of the Future - that wife-killer William Kemmler became the first man executed in an electric chair. Although Dr George C. Fell said Kemmler “never suffered a bit of pain”, a reporter who also witnessed the execution wrote in the New York Herald the next day that “strong men fainted and fell like logs upon the floor”.Bad conduct: Charles Mackerras was not born in Australia (Emma hits heights, Today, page 6, December 1). The eminent orchestra conductor was born to Australian parents in 1925 in musical-sounding Schenectady, New York. Apropos of nothing, Schenectady was where, in 1886, the Machine Works company was set up by Thomas Edison, who also knew a thing or two about conductors.
Now compare those to a January correction from the Chicago Sun-Times:
A story in Wednesday’s paper contained a quote attributed to Evanston police commander Tom Guenther that was taken out of context.
Or this correction published by the Ottawa Sun last February:
An article in yesterday’s Sun incorrectly identified the Canadian Coalition for Action on Tobacco.
A month earlier, MSNBC.com offered this correction:
For a brief period on Dec. 20, msnbc.com misstated the chances of an asteroid’s collision with Mars.
These corrections are pointless, a waste of words and space. Fortunately, the solution to incorrect corrections is rather simple: editors should write corrections as if the words and message come from a human being and are intended to be easily read and understood by other humans.
You know, almost as if they were examples of journalism.
Correction of the Week
“Immaculate misconception: We got ourselves in almost as much of a tangle as former bishop Fernando Lugo, who has now had three separate allegations of paternity levelled against him (President hit with third baby claim, page 26, April 24). The former man of the cloth might get around but he is the President of Paraguay only, not Peru as we misconceived.” – West Australian
Infamous Last Words
“An obituary of Maurice Jarre (31 March, page 36) opened with a quotation which we are now advised had been invented as a hoax, and was never said by the composer: ‘My life has been one long soundtrack. Music was my life, music brought me to life.”’ The article closed with: ‘Music is how I will be remembered,’ said Jarre. ‘When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.’ These quotes appear to have originated as a deliberate insertion in the composer’s Wikipedia entry in the wake of his death on 28 March, and from there were duplicated on various internet sites.” – The Guardian
Parting Shot
“A Jan. 19, 2008, Metro article incorrectly described the Korean language as using symbols. It has an alphabet.” – The Washington Post
Con: The coffee is terrible. It tastes like something they'd give you in elementary school at snack time. The stuff you get at a Washington Heights bodega, that tastes like it was filtered through an old jock strap, has more bite.
Pro: The baked goods are pretty good if you are not turned off by the prospect of morbid obesity. I would very much like to arrange for a taste test between Tim Hortons, Dunkin Donuts, and Krispy Kreme, but am not sure how to work out the logistics.
#1 Posted by surlybastard, CJR on Mon 4 May 2009 at 11:32 AM
i can verify krispy creme is way better than dunkin donuts
#2 Posted by jpd, CJR on Tue 5 May 2009 at 12:11 AM
"After all, what good is a correction if no one can understand what you’re talking about?"
The ones who had read the piece, the only ones who needed to understand the correction, certainly understood it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first correction.
The rest of the examples are better, as they are not really corrections.
#3 Posted by Mike, CJR on Tue 5 May 2009 at 12:43 AM
Great piece.
Mike, you miss the point.
Correctons/retractions should make as much sense as any other article in the publication, preferably with some face-saving wit.
Otherwise, absent heading-off a threatened legal action, running anything else is wasteful of valuable time, energy, and space in the hole.
#4 Posted by Former Editor, CJR on Tue 5 May 2009 at 04:30 AM
Oh dear. Speaking of.
I leave it to Jonathan Franzen to, ah, correct that typo.
#5 Posted by Former Editor, CJR on Tue 5 May 2009 at 04:33 AM
The theory behind the above cited corrections is that they paper doesn't want to again misstate the facts in the correction. So they don't want to write, "The president of the united states is not john mccain, it is barack obama." They want to write, "the president of the united states is barack obama."
#6 Posted by Bone, CJR on Tue 5 May 2009 at 08:50 AM
ah, Mike: the first one was an example of a top-notch correction, while the others were examples of not-really-corrections. That's why they're different. And Bone, you might want to re-read those not-really-corrections; where in any of them does it say anything even close to informative as "the president .. is Barack Obama"? They say "There was an error in our statement". How was it an error? What should it have been? The world may never know.
#7 Posted by JohnR, CJR on Tue 5 May 2009 at 09:36 AM