Disqus - Latest Comments for devika_melora

Re: â€œWhat is the secret of your secret?â€

devika_melora — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:46:24 -0000

I don't know why, but the "What is the secret of your secret?" error sent me into hysterics for a good 5 minutes. How could such a ridiculous error have been overlooked?! It's just so absurd.

P.S. Apologies for the double post.

Re: â€œWhat is the secret of your secret?â€

devika_melora — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 18:44:26 -0000

Oops double post.

Re: The headline is right

devika_melora — Fri, 21 May 2010 12:51:33 -0000

And the National Post spelled Pfizer wrong in the correction! Sheesh.

Re: How to make The Smiths even more sad

devika_melora — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:52:39 -0000

This entry has one of the funniest headlines I've ever read. I had to cover my mouth to stop myself from spitting soda all over the keyboard. Nicely done!

Re: Apology

devika_melora — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:33:55 -0000

I can't help but wonder exactly how much fact-checking was done here. I would think that any sensible person, especially a reporter, who hears such an outlandish claim would do a LOT of research to verify the story. And then it took them 2.5 years to publish an apology? I wonder if the funeral home finally contacted them after they discovered why people stopped using their services.

Re: German press hoaxed by fake report of suicide bombing

devika_melora — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:26:26 -0000

This is a really hilarious story. I can't believe that this was so huge in Germany while people from the States are completely unaware. I was looking at the websites the filmmakers created, and I noticed that in the weekly schedule for the TV station, the word "traveling" was spelled the British way ("travelling"), which should have tipped off anybody who had experience with American spellings, but I guess the hype was too great.

Re: Paper brings Django Reinhardt back from the dead

devika_melora — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:39:07 -0000

I was looking through the Star-Telegram's corrections, and they've issued 3 corrections since this article was posted, yet none of them are related to this article. They've corrected a phone number and the date of a meeting, but apparently didn't think it necessary to correct the inadvertent resurrection of a renowned musician.

Re: What the ********?

devika_melora — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:19:47 -0000

The LA Times still has the error posted on their "Company Town" blog. I find this a bit odd considering the NYT article published the same day as the LA Times article, and NYT lists Los Angeles as the location, so I can only assume that they read the same press release or the NYT published their article after the LA Times. Either way, it's amusing to me that the LA Times still hasn't realized their error or made an effort to correct it.

Re: Canadian prime minister embarrassed by typo

devika_melora — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:01:26 -0000

I just noticed the first line of this post has a typo. I assume you meant to write "every once in a while" (not "every one in a while").

(Typo aside, this is a great post that I've forwarded to a lot of my friends.)

Re: NYT public editor addresses errors made in Cronkite article; some basic advice for preventing errors

devika_melora — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:57:01 -0000

The most ridiculous thing about most of these errors is how simple it would have been to research or check. I realize she copied down the information incorrectly, but if I were short on time, I would at least take the 5 minutes to check the dates of major events. And I agree with other comments regarding the increased level of scrutiny the reporter/editors should face from the higher ups, since since a draft was written it so far in advance.

Re: Lean Cuisine Stuffed Cabbage Video Review (Ep123)

devika_melora — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:03:15 -0000

I love my mom's stuffed cabbage, but there's something weird to me about frozen pre-cooked cabbage. For $2.44 you can make your own!

Re: Photog working for NY Times Mag accused of manipulating images UPDATE: NY Times confirms manipulations

devika_melora — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:03:14 -0000

Speaking of ethics, PDN has made the list in my book!

Although Gawker does acknowledge that Adam Gurno's made the initial discovery at the end of their post, they oddly begin it with the claim that "Photo District News has found evidence of digital manipulation..." and proceed to link to PDN's related article: <http: www.pdnpulse.com="" 2009="" 07="" new-york-times-magazine-withdraws-possibly-altered-photo-essay.html="">.

PDN's own article is both self-promotional and deceiving. In the paragraph immediately preceding the manipulated photos, the editor writes:
"Working from a copy of the Times Magazine, PDN has identified evidence of manipulation in three of Martin's six published photos. A blogger first noticed the project was suspect based on a photo that ran online only."

I realize that they point out that their print investigation differed slightly from Adam Gurno's digital analysis, but they not only don't mention his real name or handle (both easily discoverable). They don't even specify the website/blog where the discussion took place, which I think may be a lie by omission to imply that one of their own bloggers found the error. Well, maybe that last one is a stretch, but I find PDN's journalistic ethics questionable, at best.

[Note: The Gawker article may seem a bit confusing, but since they don't benefit from claiming either party the initial investigator, and they acknowledge Adam Gurno by his full name, I think their entry can be chalked up to awkward writing style.]

Re: Fuzzy numbers etc.

devika_melora — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:01:01 -0000

I like when publications include information about the original article in the correction, especially the page number. I often wondered why more publications don't do this, specifically online media, where it is so easy to add a link to the original article being corrected/clarified.

Re: Chris Anderson admits to “screwup” that led to unattributed passages in his latest book

devika_melora — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:38:48 -0000

Not to mention, what non-fiction author (especially a tech writer) would use Wikipedia as a definitive source? The entries are notoriously error-laden. And for that matter, what kind of author/researcher would cite a secondary source rather than seeking out the primary source (if available)? Even if a writer stumbles upon some interesting tidbit in Wikipedia, they should at least go to the reference linked to it to verify. The citations are linked right next to the information, for Pete's sake! I love(d) Wired mag, but I call BS on Chris Anderson's explanation.

Re: Journal editor resigns over hoax article

devika_melora — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:20:34 -0000

I am so confused about this whole prank. The director of publications knew it was a hoax, but the editor-in-chief didn't? How can a paper even get accepted without the EIC looking at it? I've been working in scholarly journal/magazine publishing for over 5 years, and I've never heard of anything this idiotic.

Disqus - Latest Comments for devika_melora

Re: â€œWhat is the secret of your secret?â€

Re: â€œWhat is the secret of your secret?â€

Re: The headline is right

Re: How to make The Smiths even more sad

Re: Apology

Re: German press hoaxed by fake report of suicide bombing

Re: Paper brings Django Reinhardt back from the dead

Re: What the ********?

Re: Canadian prime minister embarrassed by typo

Re: NYT public editor addresses errors made in Cronkite article; some basic advice for preventing errors

Re: Lean Cuisine Stuffed Cabbage Video Review (Ep123)

Re: Photog working for NY Times Mag accused of manipulating images UPDATE: NY Times confirms manipulations

Re: Fuzzy numbers etc.

Re: Chris Anderson admits to “screwup” that led to unattributed passages in his latest book

Re: Journal editor resigns over hoax article

Re: â€œWhat is the secret of your secret?â€

Re: â€œWhat is the secret of your secret?â€