« Did the blogosphere "cause" Eason Jordan's ouster? | Main | Most unintentionally funny (and self-revelatory) lines I've read today »

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Can Patterico goad the MSM elephants into a new corrections policy?

Is there any principled argument against this proposal by my blogospheric friend Patterico in his very fine op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times? If there is, I surely can't think of it:

A substantive correction should be at least as conspicuous as the original article in which the error appeared. A correction of a substantial error in a front-page article should run on Page 1. The policy would make it more likely readers would actually see corrections of significant errors. It would give reporters and editors greater incentive to get stories right. And it would encourage more vigorous scrutiny for political bias, latent or overt.

Despite the LAT's agreement to run Patterico's piece in the "experimental column in which the Los Angeles Times invites outside critics to rip [it]," I don't expect the Dog Trainer to be the first to implement this policy.

But what if, say, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Sun, and the Washington Times simultaneously instituted it — with some introductory hoopla and a running sidebar (even on page 2) showing which of their competitors has and hasn't followed suit?

Posted by Beldar at 02:00 PM in Mainstream Media | Permalink


Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Can Patterico goad the MSM elephants into a new corrections policy? and sent a trackback ping are listed here:


The comments to this entry are closed.