The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes

Politics and law from a British perspective (hence Politics LAW BloG): ''People who like this sort of thing...'' as the Great Man said

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
 

Slate corrects the Saletan error. Kinda


It was quick. I emailed the nice people at Slate over the snafu (explained in my piece yesterday), and within 24 hours, a correction had been posted.

(Of course, I don't know it was my email that did the trick: can't tell because those offering corrections aren't namechecked!)

If I was being pissy, I'd complain that the original article referred to four senators changing sides from supporting Roe v Wade to opposing the Feinstein Amendment. The correct number was five. But the difference in the total votes is 52 minus 49, or three. Readers are still left to scratch their heads as to who it was who moved the other way - and why [1].

In fact, the lack of evidence for Saletan's theory is no less glaring today than it was yesterday.

But, since I'm not being pissy...

  1. My piece says who: no help with why.

MORE

And, with Daniel Okrent and the New York Times in mind, let it be recorded that
  1. Saletan's was an op-ed, opinion piece; and

  2. it was susceptible of correction; and

  3. it was corrected by the editorial staff acting for the publication corporately.

The bleating from the NYT - in which Okrent pretty much concurs (March 29) - that such corporate correction of op-ed errors was impossible is shown up for the complete bollocks it is.


|
free website counter Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com