On the other hand, the thing that got me about the report was how high Blair's correction rate was; something like 50 or so published corrections in 3 years. Now, I compare this to my knowledge that, with one exception, every newspaper article I've ever been referenced in, or that was about something I had intimate knowledge about, has contained 3-4 factual errors at a minimum, and I wonder 1) whether the press is deluding themselves about how accurate they actually are or 2) just what the severity of error is required for an official correction or if people even bother to let the papers know about such. 'Cause that number of reported errors sure seems low to me.

The one exception was a story in the UMichigan paper on Harlan Ellison, due to Harlan speaking at UM that evening. I'd managed to convince the reporter to let me do a factchecking pass on it before it was published, telling her I wouldn't say a word about any opinions, but I'd point out any hard facts that were wrong and if I could, show her a reference to prove it. She could then do what she wanted with it. I recall that I caught about 3-4 factual mistakes, which she corrected. Harlan actually stated during his talk that this was the first article about him of hundreds that had no factual errors, and lauded the reporter. Who was kind enough to call out from the audience that it was due to my factchecking.

Tom Galloway