"Such wholly insensitive wordplay..."

Cootaboot · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 5:06 pm

The San Bernardino County Sun apologizes for using "Horsing Around" as the kicker on a feature photo of the 2004 Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony, in which the sheriff's honor guard walked a rider-less horse: But the headline writer, who we assume had to have written it without looking at the photo itself or the cutline information to commit such a gaffe, failed to appreciate the seriousness of the tribute and erred grievously by trying to be ``cute.''
By taking such unseemly liberties, and ignoring the basic journalistic credo to not distort the facts of a situation, they have grossly offended not only the fine peace officers who risk their lives to protect us, but everyone in the journalism profession.
(Read full apology here.)Have you ever seen a paper hang a reporter (that it hasn't fired) out to dry like this?And should the San Bernardino County Sun really be demoralizing its copy staff when its editorial writers think that "they" can be substituted for "he" or "she?"

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 5:47 pm

We hang our heads in shame that this travesty was allowed to get by us.I have little sympathy for the copy editor here but the "apology" goes overboard. Also, didn't someone slot the caption? Did anyone proof it?
Also, it wouldn't take much imagination to think of possible headlines far worse that "Horsing Around," but it would be wrong to do so.[ May 27, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Cootaboot · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 6:06 pm

Yeah, the hed's writer screwed up (at least it wasn't "Mr. Ed for the Dead") and he ought to be yelled at by his boss, and the other guys on that night also ought to be yelled at by their boss.I was appalled that they blasted the copy ed in print like that, especially since they didn't say that they fired him or her (as they no doubt would have said if they had).

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 6:50 pm

Quite right. A simple apology and an observation along the lines of ''not our best effor'' would have sufficed.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 10:38 pm

At least they didn't ID the poor schmuck. Or run his mug shot.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 10:55 pm

Yeah, this correction is really overboard. As far as hanging out to dry, I remember a widely circulated correction of a few years ago in which the paper in Gallatin, Tenn., (I've actually been there), under the hed "Our Deepest Apologies," ran an editorial groveling over and apologizing for juvenile sexual content that made it into print in a high school soccer story. It even went so far as to say that every effort was made to retrieve the papers from circulation once the problem was discovered.That reporter was, according to the editorial, fired on the spot.

vtuss · **Posted:** Thu May 27, 2004 11:53 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Cootaboot:
Have you ever seen a paper hang a reporter (that it hasn't fired) out to dry like this?<hr></blockquote>You could ask Judith Miller.As for the Tennessee thing, that was a little harder core than just juvenile sexual conduct. I don't have the clip, but I have the E&P article about the court judgment at work. Here's one online summary of that case and what it cost:A statement inserted in the dummy copy of a small-town newspaper in Tennessee resulted in major liability for that paper. In 1997, the Gallatin News Examiner, a tri-weekly paper, ran an article about a local high school soccer player named Garrett "Bubba" Dixon, Jr. In an early draft of the article the reporter, Nick DeLeonibus, inserted quotes attributed to the high school soccer coach charging Dixon, in extremely explicit language that would otherwise have been unfit for publication, of bestiality and unsanitary habits. This was an ongoing joke between reporter DeLeonibus and his editor in which such quotes would be inserted into the article by the reporter to see if the editor caught on. The joke bombed. The editor missed the quotes in this edition, the quotes remained in the final product, and both the soccer player and coach sued. Despite the newspaper's arguments that the statements could not be understood as statements of fact, a Tennessee jury awarded the player, Dixon, $550,000 in compensatory and $300,000 in punitive damages against the News Examiner. The coach received $150,000 in compensatory damages from the paper.

Cootaboot · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 12:47 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Vince Tuss:
You could ask Judith Miller.<hr></blockquote>But the NYT never said "the reporter who wrote the stories" or some such. It went out of its way to spread the blame around: "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated."

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 8:13 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Cootaboot:
But the headline writer, who we assume had to have written it without looking at the photo itself or the cutline information to commit such a gaffe, failed to appreciate the seriousness of the tribute and erred grievously by trying to be ``cute.''
<hr></blockquote>I agree that this correction is way over the top. Also, I find it curious that the bosses "assume" the copy editor wrote the hed without looking at the photo or the cutline information. Didn't they talk to the poor schmuck before writing the correction?Anyway, their assumption seems improbable. Without looking at the photo or cutline information, how would the copy editor know it had anything at all to do with horses?

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri May 28, 2004 1:35 pm

I've rarely read an apologetic correction or retraction that wasn't over the top. Especially when the police, military or other public services are involved, most newspaper editors have an innate need to grovel.Reflexively, anything that might be taken as a slight to people in uniform is offset by declarations of how brave and selfless they are. This tiresome rhetoric does nothing to enhance the sincerity of the apology and only reminds readers of the terror that journalists feel of being perceived as out of touch.There is exactly one way to apologize for gaffes like this: Promise your readers that you are going to pay for more copy editors and better copy editors.

Dapper Dan · **Joined:** Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:01 am **Posts:** 273

Perhaps the poor schmuck quit, and therefore the mucketymucks couldn't talk to that person, so they tried assuming.

Jackie · **Posted:** Sun May 30, 2004 6:31 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Oeditpus Rex:
At least they didn't ID the poor schmuck. Or run his mug shot.<hr></blockquote>At my first paper, the person making the original error (copy desk or reporter) was named in the correction. I don't recall, unfortunately, if that extended past the rank-and-file employees.

jaustin · **Posted:** Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:39 am

well, as far as identifying the erring staffer, it would be nice if, when staff writers win awards, the editing staff was also identified for their contribution ...

Testy Copy Editors

"Such wholly insensitive wordplay..."

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links