Hell hath no fury like a Trekkie scorned. Or a comic book collector scorned. Or a Star Wars geek scorned.
When reporting on these areas of extreme fan devotion, you better get the facts right. Hard core fans are merciless to ordinary humans unaware of the difference between a Klingon and a Romulan. Mistakes invite the Wrath of Khan. (Please, lord, let that be a correct reference.)
Several newspapers have already had their matter rearranged thanks to errors about the new Star Trek film. Imagine the fury unleashed after the Daily Press of Virginia made the mistake cited in this correction:
In Friday’s Ticket section, a caption about the new “Star Trek” movie misspelled the name of the character Spock.
I wouldn’t want to be reporter who misspelled “Spock,” nor would I want to be the person responsible for reviewing letters to the editor. For a taste of what happens when you anger up the Trekkie blood, read this recent correction from The Guardian:
Yesterday’s rave review of the new Star Trek film referred to the “hateful Klingon Nero” (Take it to the bridge, page 9, Film & Music). Numerous readers got in touch to say how very wrong this was. Here is an excerpt from one of the emails that corrected us in a stern yet graceful way: “Dear Guardian-shaped people, Uber-bad-guy (and part time CD burner) Nero is not a Klingon, he is a Romulan. I’m not normally picky about this sort of thing (which is, as you can probably tell, a complete lie) but he is referred to as a Romulan about a dozen or more times in the film, aside from the obvious giveaways like the lack of speaking in Klingon, and the absence of lumps on his forehead. Hope that helps.” (Column editor’s note: apparently there are, disappointingly, no Klingons at all in this film. There is speculation that Romulan facility in time-travel is very useful not only to Romulans, but also to the sequel franchise … ).
Other papers, including the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, also made recent Star Trek errors. (Read the corrections here.) The superfans deserve credit for being so diligent and outspoken. They seek out mistakes contained in the far reaches of every newspaper and set their emails to stun. And they’re on the hunt at all times, as evidenced by a 2005 correction from the Star-Ledger:
Attention, Star Trek fans: No more calls or e-mails, please! Captain Kirk did not often “cloak” the Starship Enterprise to make it invisible, as was erroneously reported in the “Biz Buzz” feature in yesterday’s Business section. In fact, the first known use of cloaking technology was by the Romulans in 2266, according to “The Star Trek Encyclopedia: A Reference Guide to the Future.” Kirk and Commander Spock were sent on a mission to steal a cloaking device from the Romulans in 2268 during the first Star Trek series. And Klingons used cloaking in the movie “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.” This prompted theories of a Romulan-Klingon alliance, in which the Romulans may have traded their cloaking secrets for warp drive, reports An-swers.com. The Star-Ledger really, really regrets the error.
Star Trek is the franchise of the moment, but The New York Times dealt with an onslaught of upset comic book fans just a few years ago. In early December 2004, the paper published this correction (as noted by Gawker):
A report in the “Arts, Briefly” column on Nov. 16 about a new Marvel Comics monthly series featuring the superhero Black Panther misstated his ethnicity and cited a precedent incorrectly. While many of his adventures take place in the United States he is African, not African-American. He would not have been the first African-American hero in comics in any case; the Falcon held that distinction.
Then, less than a week later:
A report in the “Arts, Briefly” column on Nov. 16 about a new Marvel Comics monthly series featuring the superhero Black Panther misstated his ethnicity and cited a precedent incorrectly. While many of his adventures take place in the United States he is African, not African-American. The first African-American superhero in comics was the Falcon, not Black Panther. A correction in this space on Wednesday misstated the timing of their debuts. Black Panther indeed preceded the Falcon.
And in early January:
An obituary of the innovative comic-page illustrator Will Eisner yesterday included an imprecise comparison in some copies between his character the Spirit and others, including Batman. Unlike Superman and some other heroes of the comics, Batman relied on intelligence and skill, not supernatural powers.
Writers and editors everywhere: may the facts be with you.
(Yes, I know that’s not a Star Trek reference!)
Correction of the Week
“A headline on page one of the Toronto Sun yesterday was both inaccurate and misleading. In fact, as the story reported, the mother of a boy involved in a high school fight in Keswick said her son “said something stupid.” She did not say nor imply he was stupid. The Sun regrets the error and apologizes to the boy and his family.” – Toronto Sun
Birds of a Widow
“Owens Lake: An article in Section A on April 19 about a bird census conducted at Owens Lake identified a bird sighted as a dowager. The name is dowitcher.” – Los Angeles Times
Parting Shot
“An item in the PriceWatch page in yesterday s edition, concerning value for money on tuna, made reference to the Spanish stealing Irish tuna. No Spanish fishermen have been charged with illegal fishing of tuna in Irish waters.” – Irish Times



Maybe it's the fact that if journalists report incorrectly on things I know well -- nerd stuff, computers, whatever -- it leads me to be VERY suspicious they report any more accurately on things I can't personally check. Given the level of error and carelessness I see in pop culture reporting, it would not surprise me to find out our current President is Hillary Clinton, that we invaded Saudi Arabia and not Iraq, and that our country has a parliament, not a congress. YES. The average newspaper reporting on "geek things" REALLY IS THAT BAD.
#1 Posted by Lizard, CJR on Sat 16 May 2009 at 08:35 PM
Is this the same story as the Khan in Mongolia ?
#2 Posted by Reddream, CJR on Sat 16 May 2009 at 09:27 PM
Just the grammar and spelling that slips by the editors in newspaper articles is cringe-worthy enough, but too often I'll have been to an advance screening of a movie, only to read the local critics' articles on Friday and wonder if we were at the same movie. This is particularly disconcerting when I actually saw at least one of the critics enter the theatre. For STAR TREK, several critics I read referred to the movie being the 'origin story' of how the classic crew came to be together, when it was clearly indicated several times within the movie, and uncounted times on the internet prior to the movie's release, that the movie depicts the timeline of a parallel universe created when characters from the classic series' universe went back in time through a black hole. It amazes me that these critics even get paid for their work when they're obviously not paying attention to the movies they've been sent to review.
#3 Posted by Bruce in Ottawa, CJR on Sat 16 May 2009 at 10:01 PM
I will admit that I've been a Star Trek fan. On a scale of 1 to 10, know nothing - know everything, I would put myself at a 4 or 5. Being that said, I would like to start a flame war between Trekkers and Stars Wars idiots. However, this is certainly not the place for such a conversation.
But, I must point out that the legions of followers, either Star Trek fans, Star Wars idiots, or any other sci-fi / fantasy cult, have something that is missing from from our real lives. They still know something about loyalty and and the "All for one and one for all" value. They are loyal to their tribe.
If the chips are really down, I'd even hang with the Star Wars idiots.
#4 Posted by o4tuna, CJR on Sat 16 May 2009 at 10:32 PM
Wow, you hit that big ole nail on the head dude!
RT
www.whos-watching.net.tc
#5 Posted by Bill Jones, CJR on Sat 16 May 2009 at 11:36 PM
Any reporter that reports incorrectly, regardless of subject, needs to be reported. Would've thought they knew that already?
And since when do Romulans have time travel, 'The Guardian'? You guys are idiots. Perhaps, and this is just an idea, you should WATCH the movie first, AND ALSO you should pay attention! Its not like you're paying to see the movie, when it is your job to do so. If you don't like the flick, don't go see it! Pass it off to somebody else in the office - guaranteed no matter what reporting agency you call home, if you're not a Trekkie, you're within spitting distance of one.
#6 Posted by Gonzobot, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 12:19 AM
Don't even get me started on all the bad physics in the movie, either. I know the moviemakers consider it unimportant but it ruins the movie for a key constituency - scientists and teachers. I mean, there are so many problems not the least of which is the fact that supernovas don't destroy multiple star systems, black holes are FORMED by supernovas and a little one has no chance in hell of stopping one, and so on. With just the slightest consideration to reality you could point to the movie and say to a young scientist-- see, that's nearly real. Only a little bit fantasy, instead of nearly all of it. Grr.
#7 Posted by Astroteacher, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 01:03 AM
If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. - Mark Twain
#8 Posted by cd, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 04:29 AM
If you think the ability to accurately reported science fiction is bad, look at how science is reported. There is a culture, more so in TV news, of "I don't understand science HA HA HA": very much the idiot talking head newscaster Harvey Johnson from Die Hard only in real life:"as in Helsinki Sweden".
I remember when the end of 1999 was approaching, and the idiot reporters kept talking about "the end of the millennium." But of course that was not until December 31 2000. End of 20th century=end of 2000=end of the second millennium. Not rocket science, but simple math, or even really just simple English.
And Star Trek WAS a big disappointment.
#9 Posted by cd, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 04:43 AM
Imagine the furor and uproar iff a newspaper published anything that, for example, referred to babe Ruth's illustrius Career as a New York Met, or an Atlanta Brave? Can you imagine?
If a newspaper is going to publish something, ANYTHING, they have to have their facts right. Making stupid factual errors because it's 'just' Star Trek or 'just a Movie' is inexcusable.
#10 Posted by Lewis, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 05:20 AM
You made reference in your opening paragraph to Star Wars geeks, yet failed to provide any examples of Star Wars geekery in terms of their being "scorned". Ironic ;)
#11 Posted by bob, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 09:27 AM
Literati are all about *deconstructing* fiction.
But good SciFi isn't *constructed* - it is *developed*.
The difference being that the stuff they like is put together from discrete elements in order to construct a statement, but the stuff we SciFi fans like is organically grown from the consideration of an alternate reality along with a desire to tell an entertaining story.
So they don't get to enjoy J.R.R. Tolkien and all the rest - too bad for them, and we can be comfortable listening to them bleat in complaint as we enjoy escapist entertainment for what it is, because their feigned superiority is a flaw in their appreciation for artistic expression.
IOW, Nero FTW!
#12 Posted by wormgineer, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 08:28 PM
@Astroteacher
I understand your being slightly upset over the physics errors in the film, i too was, at first, being quite an avid physics student, however the story of Spock creating the black hole and stopping the supernova that would consume the galaxy, was the end of the ORIGINAL series of Star Trek, at such a time as the original series was made, next to nothing was known about black holes and supernovae and thus any falsities in the current film were necessary in order to connect it with the original.
#13 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 09:25 PM
This honestly smacks of laziness on the part of the writer, why would you reference something that you have no clue about? Either you do you r home work or you look like a fool. Please don't put it on the "fans", it's not their fault. Of course they will correct you, why? Because they know what they are talking about. I do also understand that people make mistakes, but it seems to me that most written material is nothing more than fluff. People writing just because they can. Your opinions are not that valuable, trust me (and yes that goes for me too).
When you write something like "Mistakes invoke the wrath of Khan", I think you were trying to be funny. But honestly it proves to me that you don't understand the source material. Either you saw the movie or you didn't. Think before you write, and understand your audience, or you will not have one.
#14 Posted by R.Oncioiu, CJR on Sun 17 May 2009 at 09:51 PM
"When you write something like 'Mistakes invoke the wrath of Khan', I think you were trying to be funny. But honestly it proves to me that you don't understand the source material. Either you saw the movie or you didn't. Think before you write, and understand your audience, or you will not have one."
I think his article was great. And you're exactly the kind of person he's making fun of.
#15 Posted by Christofer C. Bell, CJR on Mon 18 May 2009 at 02:45 AM
check http://yourtvonline.com
#16 Posted by ann, CJR on Mon 18 May 2009 at 05:47 AM
@wormgineer - actually, there's plenty of deconstruction in the F/SF genre. By real life academics, even.
#17 Posted by Josh Jasper, CJR on Mon 18 May 2009 at 05:50 PM
Everyone has failed to mention that when the porn industry is making 'movies' about Star Trek, the message has arrived. Now even an uncool, nerdy, lives-in-the-basement Trekkie can imagine T'Pal nekkid.....
Welcome to the new Trek franchise.
#18 Posted by Kad, CJR on Thu 21 May 2009 at 04:37 PM