</h1> <article> <h1>Comment on The Wall Street Journal: Cavalier about corrections? by The Bureau Chiefs » Blog Archive » Cheers and Regards for the Week of May 31, 2010</h1> <p>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 04:54:22 +0000</p> <p>[...] of paper somewhere that guaranteed such a thing. (DL) REGARDS to the Wall Street Journal, which is apparently busy doing whatever else it is doing to issue simple corrections to name misspellings in book reviews. Or to respond to someone pointing [...]</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on How hard is it to report an error to the Wall Street Journal? Hard. by saddle</h1> <p>saddle — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:15:19 +0000</p> <p>This is very common in smaller media outlets as well. So with that being said, good luck to seeing anything happen with The Journal. But you never know, stranger things have happened.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on How hard is it to report an error to the Wall Street Journal? Hard. by SF Bay Area Injury Lawyer</h1> <p>SF Bay Area Injury Lawyer — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 03:57:43 +0000</p> <p>All I can say you have more patience and determination to do the right than than the rest of us. Me, I would not even think about picking up the phone if the comment form doesn’t work.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on How hard is it to report an error to the Wall Street Journal? Hard. by Alan</h1> <p>Alan — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:50:43 +0000</p> <p>You know, it seems like you could spend days going around in circles with something like this…Maybe it is that endless spiral you feel as things are going down the toilet? </p> <p>Back in the heyday of print news, facts had to be checked before something was published…and don’t get me started on proofreading. Somewhere along the line, computers have taken over the proof reading of most books and we have all gotten to learn just how bad of a speller an author can be. Add bad spelling to computerized grammer checkers and you get sentences like this:</p> <p> Look over their, someone left there drink near that picture of water.</p> <p>I do respect that you took the time to bother.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on Journal’s Sarb-Ox goof, Kos’s flawed polls: New kinds of errors demand new kinds of corrections by Latest online drugstore news – Cialis fda | We Are The CHEAPEST Online-Drugstore!!!</h1> <p>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:21:43 +0000</p> <p>[...] Buy Gleevec No Prescription – Online DrugStore [...]</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on Why do we bother to correct errors? by My Bad: The Importance of Admitting You Were Wrong « Meredith Shamburger</h1> <p>My Bad: The Importance of Admitting You Were Wrong « Meredith Shamburger — Wed, 26 May 2010 05:18:30 +0000</p> <p>[...] In an old post (but worth the read), Scott Rosenberg of MediaBugs.org highlights one of the reasons why corrections are important, focusing on two New York Times corrections of Voxox (originally reported as “Vovox”) and the College of William & Mary (originally printed as “William and Mary College”): the importance of correcting them lies not in some earth-shattering import to the facts themselves but rather in the bond of trust that is established when a publication is seen to care enough to correct them — and, inversely, the loss of trust that occurs when the publication doesn’t bother. [...]</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on The Wall Street Journal: Cavalier about corrections? by Scott Rosenberg's Wordyard » Blog Archive » The Wall Street Journal: Cavalier about corrections?</h1> <p>Tue, 25 May 2010 17:15:53 +0000</p> <p>[...] [Crossposted at the MediaBugs blog] [...]</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on How hard is it to report an error to the Wall Street Journal? Hard. by The Wall Street Journal: Cavalier about corrections? | MediaBugs Blog</h1> <p>The Wall Street Journal: Cavalier about corrections? | MediaBugs Blog — Tue, 25 May 2010 17:14:24 +0000</p> <p>[...] week I wrote about my fruitless quest to alert the Wall Street Journal to a mistake it had made in a book review — misspelling the name of the author the piece [...]</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on Why do we bother to correct errors? by AP’s complicated Seinfeld episode « Mark Follman</h1> <p>AP’s complicated Seinfeld episode « Mark Follman — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:05:00 +0000</p> <p>[...] rather than getting into whether it’s important for such errors to be corrected (see here and here for why we believe it is), a simple question instead: why does it have to be so hard to get an [...]</p> </article> <article> <h1>Comment on People think the press gets a lot wrong. Maybe they’re right. by AP’s complicated Seinfeld episode « Mark Follman</h1> <p>AP’s complicated Seinfeld episode « Mark Follman — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:37 +0000</p> <p>[...] one. But rather than getting into whether it’s important for such errors to be corrected (see here and here for why we believe it is), a simple question instead: why does it have to be so hard to [...]</p> </article> </main></body></html>