Corrections v Copy Editors

.........................................................

In the past two weeks I've had three corrections published in The Financial Times and one (pictured above and below) in today's New York Times.

.........................................................

So here's my question: are the papers getting sloppier due to cutbacks of staff/poorer qualification in those writing/proofing their stories, thus publishing more errors, or am I getting sharper and more attentive?

I hardly think the latter, nor is my internal response when I see a mistake any different than it was five years ago.

But my external actions differ markedly from, say, 10 years ago, to be sure.

Before the age of the internet I didn't bother snail-mailing a correction because the enormous effort involved v the reward was so out of proportion.

Now, though, especially with the web, an error is there for all to see once it's pointed out by a pain in the butt-type like me.

So there's a much greater incentive to correct what's wrong.

And it's so very simple, a simple email does the trick and Bob's your uncle.

As Brandeis didn't write, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Anyway.

When possible I try to notify the author of the piece as well as the paper or magazine, just for the heck of it and to be annoying and to see what she/he has to say about it, if anything.

Most are very gracious and, like me, pleased to have been corrected so their work is more accurate.

The one mistake I refuse to bother with any more is — by far — the most common single error in English language media, namely cord v chord, especially when it comes to the vocal type.

About once a month on average for the past several decades I read "vocal chords," but now I just shrug.

For years I cut out instances of this misuse and put them in a folder, but when I got dozens of clippings I got tired of it, it seemed like shooting fish in a barrel.

Maybe I'll toss a correction on this confusion into the mix one of these days, for old time's sake.