Patterico's Pontifications

7/13/2005

Third Time’s a Charm: Correction #3 to the Article About Corrections

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 6:34 am



On Sunday I published a post titled L.A. Times Needs a Correction for Its Correction of that Story on Corrections. Today the L.A. Times runs that correction, which is its third (and probably final) correction regarding a highly flawed story about elderly prisoners at a California correctional facility:

Elderly prisoners — A correction Saturday for a June 26 Los Angeles Times Magazine article about the increasing number of elderly prisoners in California said that on a third-strike felony sentence of at least 25 years to life, the offender is eligible for parole after serving at least 80% of the sentence. In fact, on a third-strike sentence of 25 years to life, the offender is eligible for parole after serving the minimum sentence of 25 years.

I’m starting to feel sorry for the editors, who almost certainly wish they’d never run this story. So I’ll refrain from making my customary snarky remark about David Shaw’s four experienced Times editors. [No you won’t! — Ed.] The Readers’ Representative tells me that the editors had run their previous correction past people at the state level who should have known the right answer. That was the right way to handle it. It just turns out that their experts at the state level were wrong.

Sentencing issues such as the one that was the subject of this correction are extraordinarily complicated. My suggestion to Times editors would be to triple-check such assertions in the future. (Wait — I forgot: all assertions in the Times are already being checked by four experienced Times editors. So maybe the answer is to quintuple-check them.) [See, I told you! — Ed. Okay, so I took one little shot at David Shaw. So sue me!]

2 Responses to “Third Time’s a Charm: Correction #3 to the Article About Corrections”

  1. I just spoke to the CEO’s office of Tribune Cos. the LA Times parent company. I notified President Mr. Dennis J. FitzSimons of a defect with a product they market in Baltimore, Maryland. The defective product is marketed and promoted under trade name the Baltimore Sun.

    His office was a little mystified by this report. I explained that this situation is no different than if Ford had sold a car that’s front wheels fall off. Or if Vons or Safeway was selling spoiled meat.

    They then asked me for documentation and I assured his office that I could produce a raft of evidence to support this claim.

    I have been reading your blog for some time now and you have amply demonstrated and documented numerous defects with the product Tribune markets in Los Angeles.

    Like the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun has severe problems with among other things fact checking as well as deceptive and misleading copy and headlines.

    The remedy for this kind of claim is somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, undoubtedly an equitable method to calculate damages could be devised.

    Chris A (9fdf88)

  2. Um…stop buying the spoiled meat?

    TCO (3c2924)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0679 secs.