Important Correction Made
Here’s an example of a correction that recently made it into the L.A. Times:
Chocolate standards: A photograph accompanying an article in Section A on April 14 about a proposal to loosen government rules that dictate what ingredients go into chocolate described the candy pictured as containing walnuts. In fact, the confection shown contained pecans.
Well, thank God we got that straightened out!
Now for an example of a correction that is still being awaited:
An April 11 article stated that the Los Angeles Police Department’s landmark Special Order 40 prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects. It does not.
That’s how the correction should read. However, despite the fact that I wrote the paper about it on April 11, no such correction has issued. Indeed, the Readers’ Representative hasn’t even written me to say whether there will be a correction. She has said (after some prodding) only that she received my e-mail.
But where’s the urgency? The correction I wrote about is hardly important. It’s just a correction of a lead sentence in an article on the front page of the California section, on an issue of critical importance to the L.A. area — and which could affect the way that law enforcement works to get criminals out of our country.
That pales in comparison to the critical need to tell readers that the confection had pecans instead of walnuts.
They’re just worried they’ll be sued if someone who’s allergic to pecans eats that candy thinking it has walnuts.
Maybe we should sue them every time an illegal is not asked about their status and later commits a crime.Dan S (aa2e4d) — 4/26/2007 @ 6:04 am
There are so many double-entendres one could construct from the word “nuts” it’s, well, nuts. One can only hope that the LADT has the nuts to eventually admit that they were materially incorrect in reporting on Special Order 40.Rick Wilcox (bb4b76) — 4/26/2007 @ 8:04 am
Yes, but is order 40 transsexual?Gerry (dd769a) — 4/26/2007 @ 2:05 pm