An excellent point from an e-mailer, who asks to remain anonymous:
"Tony Rizzo's October 13th article regarding the death of Brian Euston is titled 'Man who died in Westport beating "could make everyone smile".' However, the article states that police are still working to determine how Euston was injured. It is not clear from the facts included in the article that his head injuries were the result of a beating. The headline mischaracterizes the nature of the situation and has the potential to confuse readers. Please ask your copy editors to be more careful, particularly in regards to such a sensitive subject. I'm sure the Star does not wish to add to a grieving family's burden by publishing misleading information."
She's absolutely right, as the story states. I've removed the word from the headline to reflect what we actually know at this time.
Brian Euston
There is no way the kind of injuries this young man sustained were the result of anything but a violent attack. When the smoke clears here this is going to be classified as a murder.
America's Pub is known as a dangerous place late at night, that's common knowledge. Everyone but the Star seems to know that Euston was beaten to death and died of massive head trauma.
Was correction played as big as the error?
When asked about the rumor of a beating, Kansas City Police spokesman Darin Snapp has been quoted as saying, "I even called them (The Kansas City Star) and said, ‘Who told you it was a beating?’ and they said, ‘We got it from someone but we can’t tell you.’”
Print rumors in a headline, then not back it up with facts in the article, and the response is, "Oop's, we bad, we'll fix it."
How many people saw the headline, scanned the article, then went around recounting the story of someone beaten to death in Westport. Was there a correction printed anywhere but in this blog?
The "beating" only showed up
The "beating" only showed up in the online headline, which I simply fixed. The Star's policy is to remove or fix errors online, but not to run a separate correction about them. I agree with this policy, as I find notes saying "This story used to contain an error" completely pointless and retrograde.
Online has different rules?
If the error isn't writ in dead trees and soy ink, it's not really an error; a little cut and paste action makes everything hunky-dory?
Do you have any idea how your reply reads to intelligent readers? The "Ministry of Truth" from Orwell's "1984" springs immediately to my mind.
Perhaps you're using your time off to look for honest work.
A website is by definition
Yes, publishing online is inherently different. A website is by definition temporal. Making a note to say, "This used to be wrong, but now it's right" tells the reader absolutely nothing. I have removed a few posts on this blog when I found out they were completely wrong or badly reasoned.
If you don't think every reputable publisher on the planet -- online or anywhere else -- doesn't correct its mistakes without comment on occasion, you are mistaken. I don't think there's any point in making a note about some of them. I've written about this numerous times.