Catching up on a non-correction
As we point out from time to time, the Chronicle correction policy is a regular source of confusion (and amusement).
On 26 March, we called attention to a glaring error in a column by R.G. Ratcliffe, and I also forwarded the error to the Chronicle reader representative so he could present it to whoever decides corrections at the newspaper.
Apparently, whoever decides such matters didn't agree with our assessment of error, as here is the response that the reader representative sent me last week (my internet was down during my move, hence the delay posting):
I will concede that the sentence could have been more artfully worded, but for the most part is correct. I think the question here is one of semantics or: What your definition of "is" is? Was it dropped as an agenda item the instant the Republicans took control of Congress? No. Has it been dropped since? Yes. The Republicans brought it up for a vote in the first 100 days and it was defeated.
Then, it was back to business as usual and the Republicans have never really pushed the issue again. Indeed, 11 House representative elected on the contract's promise in 1994 broke their two-term pledge, including George Nethercutt who defeated Speaker Tom Foley.
Moreover, Republicans in Congress have removed their caucus term limit on chairmanships and have dropped term limits completely as a GOP agenda item. In this discussing this with R.G. he said the story was going to explore this issue more including having an interview with Rob Mosbacher, former head of Texans for Term Limits. However, the story got too long and stuff that perhaps would have explained the point about term limits better was left on editing room floor. That said the sentence is essentially correct and therefore does not warrant a correction.
I wrote back to the reader representative that while I appreciated his explanation (and planned on posting it), whoever came up with it was killing this political science Ph.D.
Let's reflect on the paragraph in question:
Term limits were a popular Republican campaign issue in 1994, serving as a centerpiece of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America. Term limits also were one of the first agenda items dropped by Republicans once they gained control of the U.S. House.
The bolded portion is just inaccurate, because of the crucial italicized clause. As I pointed out in my email and post, term limits were acted on by the House as promised in the Contract with America, and the proposed constitutional amendment failed because it did not attract enough Democrats for the necessary supermajority. Thus, it's just not correct to say Republicans dropped the matter once they gained control of the House. That's not inartful wording -- it's just wrong.
A newspaper that refuses to correct such a glaring error when pointed out cannot be called anything other than dishonest, especially after this recent fiasco of a correction (when the corrections page still didn't get the facts quite right after a reporter took the opportunity to try to make the President look like an idiot, and instead looked like one herself).
Admittedly, the reader representative does have a point about some Republicans backing away from their term limits efforts once in office (which has little bearing on the glaring error I pointed out). However, his explanation to me introduces yet another error. Note the portion of his correction I have bolded, which asserts that Republicans in Congress have abandoned term limits for chairmen. The House rules on term limits for chairmen have NOT been abandoned, which I confirmed by contacting the House Republican leadership (although in some cases, the term limit may be waived according to established procedures). Indeed, many newspapers and partisan bloggers have inaccurately attributed the change of leadership on the House Ethics Committee to machinations by the House Majority Leader, when in reality Joel Hefley (R) was due to leave that chairmanship because of term limits, which obviously still exist. But why let facts get in the way of scandalous gossip?
Errors are part of being human. We all make them. But when the city's only newspaper refuses to correct glaring errors, and then compounds the problem by introducing another error in trying to explain it didn't make an error in the first place, its credibility takes a real hit. It's unfortunate for those professionals who do work at the Chronicle that apparently the leadership doesn't seem to care that much about credibility.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 04/06/05 08:48 PM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.