Regret the Error

Resurrection

A review of the movie "Idlewild" on Page F1 Friday mistakenly referred to actor Ben Vereen as deceased. Vereen is working on the movie "Who Needs Em?" with actress Vanessa Williams. Link

National Post corrects, retracts article

This correction and retraction (which is behind a paywall and therefore only available to subscribers) ran in yesterday's National Post. You can, however, read it at the top of the offending piece. Yet on that page it is labeled as a "Correction and clarification." And it's not on the paper's online corrections page. A little consistency would be appreciated.

Re: Terence Corcoran's Aug. 23 column, Hockey Sticks and Hatchets.
Charles Montgomery says he rents space and telephone service at Emerald City Communications in Vancouver but does not work for Emerald City Communications, and has no relationship with, nor has he completed work for, the David Suzuki Foundation.
Also, Mr. Montgomery posted on his Web site a Bloomberg News report that claimed Cubans were among the happiest people in the world. He himself did not say Cubans were the happiest people.
Mr. Montgomery also did not say of Paul Hoggan that Mr. Hoggan is a public relations man who doesn't believe people have any right to engage in public relations on behalf of views Mr. Hoggan disapproves of. Those are Terence Corcoran's views.
The National Post and Terence Corcoran wish to retract the assertion that Mr. Montgomery "deliberately" gave wrong information about the "hockey stick" debate and climate change science.
The Post regrets the errors.

Times entertains errors

An article Monday in Section A about the Emmy Awards said Farrah Fawcett, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith had not appeared together on television since Fawcett left "Charlie's Angels" after its first season. Fawcett made guest appearances on the show during subsequent seasons. Link 

An article Monday in Business about box-office results said the sports film "The Rookie" was fictional. It was based on a true story. Link

A correction that's close to home

An article in Weekend on Friday about free online audiobooks of works in the public domain referred incorrectly to Arlene Goldbard, a writer who discussed on her blog her first experience with such recordings. She is based in Richmond, Calif., not New York.

This is a correction to an article written by Craig Silverman, the editor of this site. His last (non-Regret) article that required a correction was published in October 2004. Read it here.

CNN apologizes for open mic gaffe

It was a jarring juxtaposition. President Bush was on CNN giving a speech about New Orleans, but the voice wasn't his. A CNN anchor had left her microphone on as she headed to the washroom and the result was the airing of, among other things, details about her brother's "control freak" wife. The video is here. And here's a story from Reuters/The Hollywood Reporter with CNN's apology:

CNN apologized Tuesday after an open mike transmitted an anchor's bathroom conversation with another woman live over the network as it was carrying President Bush's speech in New Orleans.
"Live From" anchor Kyra Phillips had apparently left the set around 12:48 p.m. EDT Tuesday for a bathroom break while the news channel carried Bush's speech marking the one-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Phillips' wireless microphone was turned on and picked up about a minute and a half of a muffled conversation she had with an unidentified woman where she apparently talked about her husband, laughed and talked about her brother.
"I've got to be protective of him," she said without being aware that the mic was on. "He's married, three kids, and his wife is just a control freak." CNN anchor Daryn Kagan broke into the telecast immediately afterward updating viewers on what Bush had been saying.
"CNN experienced audio difficulties during the president's speech today in New Orleans," the CNN statement read. "We apologize to our viewers and the president for the disruption."
CNN apologized to the White House on Tuesday afternoon. It wasn't clear whether it was a technical or human malfunction, and CNN, citing corporate policy, said it wouldn't comment on whether anyone would be disciplined. It seemed unlikely that anyone would.
CNN hasn't been immune to technical problems, particularly during political events. In November, a gaffe during a live speech by Vice President Dick Cheney showed an intermittent "X" on the screen. CNN apologized and fired a telephone operator who told a caller who complained that the network was exercising "free speech."
And in July 2004, viewers heard Democratic National Convention producer Don Mischer swear over an open microphone when balloons didn't immediately drop after a speech by Sen. John Kerry, the party's presidential nominee...

No sign of the apology on CNN's website. This incident once again shines the light on CNN's lack of an online corrections page.

UPDATED: Salon removes article after its premise proves false

A correction:

Salon published an opinion piece headlined "Why I Need to See Child Porn" by Debbie Nathan on Aug. 25. The story argued that under child pornography laws, Nathan and other journalists and researchers had no protection from prosecution if they viewed visual depictions of child pornography, even inadvertently, in the course of their work. In fact, federal law does offer some legal protection for journalists and other researchers. An "affirmative defense" may exist that would protect such work under certain circumstances, and the opinion asserted by Nathan that her work, and the work of other journalists, would constitute a violation of the law was inaccurate. Salon regrets the error and has removed the article from the site. Link

UPDATE Aug 31: Salon has published yet another correction to this article.

Salon published an opinion piece headlined "Why I Need to See Child Porn,'' by Debbie Nathan, on Aug. 25. The piece incorrectly characterized the law pertaining to child pornography, and the facts surrounding the reporting of a recent published story in the New York Times.
The piece pointed to a recent story on "child model" sites by New York Times writer Kurt Eichenwald. That story described the Times as having located at least 200 sites, and described the content of certain sites. However, the Times story did not state that Eichenwald or the Times visited and viewed those 200 Web sites.
The story indicates, and Eichenwald confirms, that the portrayal of the content of those sites was primarily based on the written descriptions of them on certain advertising portals, which contained links to the sites, and not based on reviewing the content of the sites themselves.
Eichenwald said he located the portals through links on a conversation forum operated by a company described in his story. In describing that forum and the related sites, the Times story states:
"The Times did not subscribe to any sites, which it first saw referenced in online conversations among pedophiles. The Times followed a link posted in those conversations to forum postings and images on freely accessible pages of the modeling sites. Because those sites appeared to be illegal, The Times was required by law to report what it had found to authorities. Federal law enforcement officials were notified in July about the sites."
The story did not indicate that anyone at the Times deliberately viewed any potentially pornographic images, or visited any sites believing they contained pornographic images. An editor's note accompanying the story confirmed that the Times reported all of the potentially illegal content it inadvertently viewed to federal authorities and made it clear that the paper did not copy or retain any illegal images. Salon has no reason to doubt Eichenwald's and the Times' account of these actions.
The piece that appeared on Salon asserted that under child pornography laws, journalists and researchers have no protection from prosecution if they viewed visual depictions of child pornography, even inadvertently, in the course of their work. In fact, federal law appears to offer legal protection for inadvertently coming into possession of child pornography. A federal statute provides an "affirmative defense'' under certain circumstances, if the discovery of child pornography is limited and is reported to a law enforcement agency.
The assertion that there was no law regarding inadvertent discovery with which the Times could comply was incorrect. Any implication that the conduct of the New York Times or Mr. Eichenwald was illegal was also incorrect.
Salon regrets the errors and has removed the article from the site.

What a wuss

An item in the "2b" column in Sunday's editions incorrectly said U.S. Senate candidate Kweisi Mfume "did time." While his autobiography refers to multiple arrests in his youth, Mfume has never served a prison term, his campaign said yesterday. Link

Why young people don't read newspapers

Scarlett Young of Captain Strong Elementary School is 8 years old. Scarlett's age was incorrect in the weather drawing featured on the cover of Monday's Life section. In addition, the wrong drawing appeared next to her name. Scarlett's drawing appears today.

The weekend what?

Last week the VSAC Web site was not hacked and no personal information from VSAC customers was released. An incorrect headline appeared in the weekend addition of the Reformer. Link

Fuzzy numbers #4,637 etc.

The Government is spending $1.2 billion less in benefit payments each year than in 1999, not $1.2 million as reported yesterday.

An article in Section A on Monday said that Los Angeles teenager Hayley Fields had raised $1,800 to help buy a Torah for a New Orleans synagogue, which lost its scrolls to Hurricane Katrina. The figure should have been $18,000. Link