As I've written before, it's The Star's policy not to restate an error in a correction. For example, let's say a story refers to Jamie Smith, but she really spells her name Jamie Smyth. The correction should not say:
A story in the Nov. 26 Local section misspelled Jamie Smyth's last name as Smith.
That's a bad idea because it puts the mistake in the paper a second time. Better simply to write:
A story in the Nov. 26 Local section misspelled Jamie Smyth's last name.
There was an error in yesterday's paper that's a little tougher. A story about the last time gas was this cheap listed other things going on in the coutry at the time. Among them, "Marines in Iraq committed a variety of abuses against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib."
Problem is that Abu Ghraid was an Army prison, and those accused were in the Army, not the Marines. Big, big difference -- and I understand any Marines who were offended by the mistake.
Right now, I'm leaning toward wording the correction thusly:
An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Does that work? How could it be worded better?
You also have to say what you got wrong
"An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib."
This doesn't give the reader the slightest idea of what you are correcting. You could be correcting the name of the prison, the nationality of the prisoners, or the identity of the abusers. It would be clearer to word it as follows:
"An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section misidentified the branch of the military to which the [alleged] abusers of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib belonged. It was the Army."
This wording would tell the reader exactly what was being corrected.
That's a good way to do it,
That's a good way to do it, and I would probably have used that in hindsight.
Still Bad
Derek,
I like your approach here. However the proposed correction (and the Star's policy) are still inadequate. The word "abuses" (especially during wartime) is subjective and connotes a judgment against all accused. I'd suggest using the first poster's comments and ending with "... soldiers were accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
I know, I know ... some solder(s) was/were "convicted" as token scapegoats, but is underwear clad pyramids and mistreatment of a book really "abuse"? Does anyone really think American prisoners would get off that lightly at the hands of Muslim captors, or interrogators? Even waterboarding would be like a walk in the park compared to what our troops would suffer.
Also, why is it a bad idea to put the mistake in the paper a second time? Especially if the paper wants to own up to and correct its mistake? Without the original story to compare, most 'corrections' are useless because readers have little or no context or frame of reference. Truly responsible jounalism would print more detail so the air can be fully cleared.
Quad_Kings, yes, it was
Quad_Kings, yes, it was abuse, for which people were convicted. That's no longer debatable after their trial.
That depends
on just how accurate you wish to be. Abu Ghraid is a city and the prison itself was built in the 1960's. That was not even the name of it when the abuse and alleged torture was to have taken place by not only 7 Army personnel, but the members of those actually in control of the facility now termed as OGA's. (other government agencies)
To say the Baghdad Central Confinement Facility was an "Army Prison" is itself an inaccuracy as there is no such thing on paper or in reality. Military prisons are multi agency operations, manned by representatives of all branches, everywhere from Ft Leavenworth to Abu Ghraid.
Such details however are probably trivial to anyone from a McClatchy operation however. Seeing that the company's official position and "key to success" was to take the side of "dissent"(Saddam)instead of the dissenters, (Iraqi exiles)- John Walcott
The abuses at Abu Ghraib
The abuses at Abu Ghraib were very serious matters, so I think you need to be more explicit that the Marines were not involved. My suggestion: "An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section incorrectly referred to the Marines. Instead, it should have said that some members of the Army committed abuses against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib."
Correction
The wording you have chosen seems direct enough but will require another correction. The date must have been Nov. not Feb. 25th.
Happy Thanksgiving Derrick,
John Green
John, I have no idea how I
John, I have no idea how I made that mistake. Fixed now. You should work as a copy editor!