Entry 7:

Dear Alexander,

Thank you for your cogent discussion of the royal family and its relationship to the government. You forgot to reveal your personal opinion of the royal family, though. I'm surprised at how many people I know and like are royalists, and not even secretly--is it something in the non-fluorinated water?

Did you happen to see the Guardian's "Corrections and Clarifications" column this morning? It is a particularly fine one. Mistakes corrected include: the misspelling of the largest department store in Melbourne (it's Myers, not Meyers); the misuse of the word "qualm," which the reporter used instead of "calm," as in "the doctor qualms your fears"; and the misidentification of the Kampuchean Airlines jet used to fly the Afghan hostages home as a Trident, instead of a Tristar. There was also a historical error: "John Lennon, contrary to what we suggested in the Tapehead column of the Guide," the item reads, "did not shoot himself."

I truly revere the Guardian for bravely admitting all these mistakes in print. The Times (of New York, that is) has a corrections column every day, of course, the granddaddy of corrections columns, as proper and upright as the paper itself. Most British papers don't bother to correct their mistakes, except under threat of lawsuits, and often these heavily lawyered corrections read like bizarre parodies. One of the papers today, I can't remember which one, had a little item entitled "Queen Noor of Jordan," saying that its recent story about how Queen Noor ordered some kind of truffle risotto that cost 1,600 pounds was misleading on a number of points. For one thing, the type of truffle she ordered costs 1,600 pounds per pound, not per truffle. For another thing, the truffle (or the risotto--it was unclear), was meant to serve 60 people, not just Queen Noor herself.

Which makes you wonder: How about a tiny little phone call to check the facts before the piece ran in the first place?

The Guardian's corrections column is great because it corrects every kind of mistake there is, including mistakes in grammar, while the other papers are too arrogant (or lazy, or unwilling to take their craft seriously) to correct anything except when they really have to. The column also tries to have a little fun, in the way that British papers can and American papers generally can't. In another item today, the paper admits that it mistakenly repeated a passage in an article twice, printing the same words again. "We did not notice," the item reads, "but you did."

I like the idea that the paper recognizes that there's a "you" out there.

What's the worst mistake you ever made in print? And did they have to run a correction?

xxxx (as many as you like),
Sarah