New York Times Starts New Year With Headline Blunder

With 2010 underway for fewer than twelve hours and with, apparently, the effects of the celebration of the new year still lingering, The New York Times made a huge mistake yesterday morning when editors bungled the usage of the indefinite article "a" in the main headline for a story on the front page of its Web site.

As you can see highlighted in the screen shot above on the left, "When Everyone is a Honor Student" is how the faulty headline was published. The very first entry on page three of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage says the following:

"Use an before a word beginning with a vowel sound: onion; uncle; honor."

It's pretty funny that copy editors published that blunder given that the usage guidelines for words beginning with the aspirate H and the silent H are explicitly spelled out in the style guide's very first entry and even include the word honor. But, it was the morning after New Year's Eve and it's likely several editors and copy editors were nursing mind-crippling hangovers, so a little slack can be cut.

Fortunately, as you can see in the screen shot above on the right, somebody at The Times wasn't totally incapacitated from the previous evening's revelry and was able to catch and correct the error moments after it was published--but not before the Proofreader saw it! 

Happy New Year everyone!

Minor Typos In Slate Article about Tiger Woods/Salahi Scandals

The Tiger Woods and Salahi Whitehouse party-crashing scandals are two stories that, like a certain credit card company slogan, defiantly refuse to go away. Thus, the more that's written about them, the greater the likelihood of a copy mistake. Behold two minor typos in a story on Slate (that married the two scandals in an effort to explain their persistence in the social consciousness) highlighted for your convenience in the screen shots below:

 In the second paragraph, the word "woman" should've been written in its plural form, "women." No doubt a small typo, but notable because Slate is typically the model of impeccable copy editing.

Further down, in the article's epilogue, there is a space missing in "one-thirdof." The space, obviously, should've been placed between third and of.

These can't have been the only printed mistakes that shouldn't have been made in the coverage of these two stories, but they are the only two the Proofreader has found. Notice one? E-mail a screen shot of it to the Proofreader.

Sloppy Copy In Allen Iverson Coverage

Now that N.B.A. malcontent Allen Iverson has been released by the Memphis Grizzlies, rumors are swirling in the sports media about which team, if any, will take a chance on signing the aging guard to a contract. In its haste to enter the conversation about the possibility of the Knicks picking up Iverson, Yahoo! Sports has saddled its readers with some sloppy copy, likely the result of a proofreading fail.

As you can see highlighted in the screen shot above, the last line reads, "Isn't now the time to a few Greek teams to say they'd take Iverson in a heartbeat?"

There should be a "for" after "time" in that sentence rather than a "to," so that it reads: Isn't now the time for a few Greek teams to say they'd take Iverson in a heartbeat?

Also, the very sentence above it is borderline sloppy. It's definitely messy. But, it's not the type of ironclad sloppiness worthy of highlighter ink, like the last line is. Come on, Yahoo! Sports. Just because an N.B.A. team is about to make an epic mistake by signing Iverson doesn't mean you fine people need to make little blunders in your coverage of that mistake.

Cool Picture, Uncool Mistakes

A couple of weeks ago, a local news channel in Portland posted on its Web site this very interesting story about unusually low tides off the Oregon coast. Unfortunately, as Midwest correspondent Stan Kost noticed, the third line of the article, a collaborative effort by KGW.com and the A.P., lacked the preposition "of" where it should've been printed, between "remains" and "shipwrecks," as you can see in the highlighted screen shot below.

Now, it's very possible that the two editorial teams made this mistake because they were distracted by the coolness of the art accompanying the story. How often do you get to see real shipwrecks exposed by dramatically recessed tides?

The Proofreader doesn't typically like to give out Mulligans for this sort of thing. But, for the sake of argument, however unlikely it may be, say he gave these editors a mulligan because he liked the content so much. Well, then the Proofreader would expect that these two professional editorial teams would use that Mulligan wisely and get it right the second time around. Sounds fair, right?

Unfortunately, despite the generous Mulligan, they screwed up again. As you can see in the above screen shot, editors caught the original mistake and inserted an "of" where it was lacking. But then, inexplicably, they decided to rephrase the end of the sentence--and made another mistake!

D'oh!

This time they forgot to place a space between "to" and "see." Why they even tinkered with the copy any further is a mystery to the Proofreader. Aside from the missing "of," the copy was fine. Moral of the story: Leave well enough alone. Oh, and don't give out mulligans. Ever.

The Proofreader thanks Stan Kost for submitting the mistake.

Punctuation Problems At Post Continue

A couple of weeks ago the New York Post screwed up Yankees' pitcher A.J. Burnett's E.R.A. by placing a colon rather than a decimal point in the number. The other day the Post forgot to place an apostrophe in a contraction that appeared in a review of Conan O'Brien's first episode as host of NBC's Tonight show. The mistake was submitted by the Proofreader's good friend, and a very funny guy, Adam Wade.

The mistake appeared on page 34 of the June 2nd edition of the paper, in the third-to-last line of the article, as you can see highlighted in the picture above. In a review that critiqued Conan for being "unfunny," the Post, in a funny display of incompetence for a professional news publication, made a stupid error . The Post forgot to type an apostrophe in the contraction won't, which resulted in the word "wont."

This mistake was of the double-threat variety, as it appeared in the printed paper and, as of this post, still exists online as you can see here or in the below screen shot.

The Proofreader thanks Adam Wade for submitting the mistake.

Legalese Bungle...Made By Lawyers

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," wrote Shakespeare in Henry VI. That quote has become famous due to a general social contempt toward lawyers, but, until now, the Proofreader has never had a reason to dislike attorneys. In fact, he even married one and today's mistake is submitted by the Mrs. Proofreader. So, to paraphrase the Bard, let's mock all the lawyers who wrote the sloppy legalese on the California Department of Insurance Web site. As you can see in the highlighted screen shot below, the attorneys who wrote this riveting broker fee regulations summary erred with their use of "therefor" in the last line of the second graph.

At a glance, it looks like these lawyers simply made a pedestrian typo, forgetting to type the "e" on the end of "therefore." And that may have been what happened, but..."Therefor," albeit seldom used, is a legitimate word, common legalese. The problem is that therefor and therefore have different meanings and these attorneys, who most definitely should be on high alert for a mistake like this, should've gone with the one with the e on the end that means “consequently, hence, for that reason.” Come on, they're lawyers.

Interestingly, this isn't the first time the Proofreader's had to break out the highlighter for this Web site. In his maiden post, the Proofreader pointed out an instance of the word "pursuant," also very common in lawyer parlance, misspelled. These lawyers have got to pull it together.

The Proofreader thanks Mrs. Proofreader for submitting the mistake.

Affect or Effect Conundrum

Today's post about the affect/effect conundrum is a result of a reader submission. Stan Kost e-mailed the Proofreader inquiring about a questionable word choice in an A.P. story on Alaska's frequently erupting Mount Redoubt that he saw recently on Yahoo! News. Mr. Kost wrote, "This Yahoo! News story used 'affects' as a noun. Shouldn't it be 'effects'? Or is it a legitimate alternate spelling?"

No, when used as nouns affect and effect are not interchangeable. When to use affect or effect is a dilemma that's stymied many a deadline-driven writer, because the affect/effect rules are really hard to remember, even for pro writers--maybe because they don't lend well to a catchy mnemonic device. Referring to a style guide, such as The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, would swiftly resolve the matter, but sometimes writers don't have time or forget to check. Hence the existence of copy editors and proofreaders who should catch these kinds of subtle mistakes most people never even notice.

As you can see, highlighted in the above screen shot, the last sentence of graph twelve reads, "She was experiencing other affects, too." Interestingly, in the preceding paragraph, the word "affect" is used correctly--as a verb meaning "to influence or change," according to page 10 of the Times style manual. An argument can be made that affects is the correct word choice in the above sentence because it's being used as a noun meaning "an emotional response or feeling," as is noted on page 11 of the Times style manual. It's plausible somebody living next to an eruption-happy volcano could be experiencing feelings of fright or concern. But the very next line of the article shoots a bunch of holes in that theory:

The woman quoted here explains the effects (not affects) or physical "results or consequences" the volcanic ash in the air had on her eyes. Affect/effect confusion is a common problem and this is a subtle mistake that only the most alert readers catch, but it's certainly a mistake that should've been caught by someone at the A.P. or Yahoo! News.

The Proofreader thanks Stan Kost for submitting the mistake.

Self-Examination: Did the Proofreader Screw Up?

Does the Proofreader dare disturb the universe? Yes, that's the very nature of his undertaking. At least, the potential disturbance of the printed universe is a risk of (sometimes gleefully) pointing out the mistakes of others. And the Proofreader is susceptible to making mistakes too, especially since he has no editors checking his work. But in a minute there is time for decisions and revisions, which some readers would prefer to reverse.

Several readers have e-mailed and a few have commented that the Proofreader bungled the choice of a word in a February 4th post about sloppy copy on The Drudge Report. As you can see in the highlighted screen shot above, the Proofreader wrote, "Recently, though, less errors and typos..." Readers who've e-mailed and commented have contended that the word "fewer" should have been used instead of "less." The Proofreader responded by citing the "fewer/less" entry on page 31 of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage as his reasoning behind the choice of less. Still, people weren't satisfied and some were annoyed.

A reader, John, e-mailed, "Shouldn't you be adding yourself to your list of Poor spelling (24) ? Or at least including a new section of errors (maybe just for yourselves... ) - wrong words"

So, did the Proofreader screw up? He leaves the answer to that question up to the people. Please chime in with your analysis. Perhaps an editor from The New York Times will take a moment to make a ruling. If the Proofreader made a mistake, he will cop to it.