Comments on: “In a way it is surprising that we do not make more mistakes.”

By: Jonathan Stray » Measuring and increasing accuracy in journalism

Jonathan Stray » Measuring and increasing accuracy in journalism — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:41:02 +0000

[...] these problems by asking the story’s sources to find errors in finished articles. In 1936 Mitchell V. Charnley of the University of Minnesota ”mailed 1,000 news items clipped from three Minneapolis [...]

By: SerÃ¡ mesmo o fim da exatidÃ£o dos jornais? « Webmanario

SerÃ¡ mesmo o fim da exatidÃ£o dos jornais? « Webmanario — Sun, 09 May 2010 10:25:02 +0000

[...] de nomes prÃ³prios Ã© o maior gargalo da imprensa (e isso desde a dÃ©cada de 30, de quando data o primeiro estudo conhecido sobre a exatidÃ£o dos [...]

By: tokyotoe

tokyotoe — Fri, 02 May 2008 03:17:37 +0000

Shurely it’s “you have fewer people”
tt

By: TootsNYC

TootsNYC — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:01:01 +0000

Wait–about that misspelling of Degas:

“crime of PUTTING an acute accent on the artist Edgar Degasâ€™ surname in last weekâ€™s paper, held his hand up to the offence but pointed out that he had been working on seven different pages under severe time pressure,â€ Marsh writes. â€œDoubtless he had corrected many mistakes but the one he MISSED was…”

Did he PUT the accent on, or did he read over an existing accent, thereby MISSING it?

The mistake that still embarrasses me, more than 20 years later, is actively misspelling a word (kernal, instead of kernel). The reason I’m still mortified is that it’s rare for copyeditors to CREATE mistakes.

But it’s not that rare to read right over something, trusting that the reporter got it right in the first place.

Which did he do? I wish Marsh had made that clearer (not good copyediting, that paragraph).

I think it makes a difference.

Marsh wrote; â€œlike most golden ages, this one was entirely mythical.â€

I agree w/ him.