The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on March 5th, 2018 at 01:45 pm
The Age’s Gay Alcorn emails:
You will never believe me, but a correction was in but was cut late Friday for space – there was no time to cut the copy. Here it is below, for inclusion on your website. I do apologise. Gay
Correction: Last week’s Blogworld quoted the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s Malcolm Farr writing that some of blogger Tim Blair’s comments were “oafish and infantile”. Farr actually said that some of the postings to Blair’s blog were “oafish and infantile’. We regret the error.
I’m fine with that; space limits often restrict print media, and it’s very generous of Alcorn to forward a correction. More troubling is that The Age’sBlogworld column isn’t published online, where such limits wouldn’t apply. I mean, it’s a column about blogs, right?
- That’s sporting of The Age but I, for one, refuse to retract my statements. I stand by my oafish and infantile comments.Posted by JDB on 2005 11 12 at 02:24 PM • permalink
- At least they’re trying, but…
Correction: Last week’s Blogworld quoted the Sydney Daily Telegraph’s Malcolm Farr writing that some of blogger Tim Blair’s comments were “oafish and infantile”. Farr actually said that some of the postings to Blair’s blog were “oafish and infantile’. We regret the error.
As far as I know, isn’t Tim the only one posting here (with occasional admin announcements from Andrea)? The rest of us are simply commenting on those posts.
Semantics, I know, but still…
As someone said, never attribute to malice what can be adquately explained by stupidity.
RebeccaH, would you please quit talking about me.
And I’m as confused as Gay is about blog jargon. Is Tim a “poster”? A “blogger”? Are we “commenters”? “Oafish”? “Infantile”?
This is exactly why we need the United Nations to take over control of the Internet. There would be none of that “what are you, what am I?” stuff. No sir re bob.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 11 12 at 04:13 PM • permalink
- CB — I’m working on beerless and querulous at the moment…Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 11 12 at 07:40 PM • permalink
- But I’m oafish and infantile . . .Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2005 11 12 at 08:19 PM • permalink
- Sorry old bean. New management, change with times etc etc.
It’s time the tone of these comments was lifted beyond the mere witty repartee and jocular invective (two similes for the price of one! I rock!) we’ve come to know and for the lefties to abhor. Management is open to suggestions, as long as it involves your slavish acceptance of the new regime. I for one accept my new comment overlords.
You will never believe me, but a correction was in but was cut late Friday for space – there was no time to cut the copy. Here it is below, for inclusion on your website. I do apologise. Gay
So the standard for making corrections in the Australian media is to email the admission of a mistake to the person who was wronged, and leave it up to that person to publicize it?
Or is this just an interim measure until enough space shows up in their paper for the correction to be printed so that the same people who saw the error can see the correct version?
- Correct. I don’t believe it.Posted by Susan Norton on 2005 11 12 at 11:13 PM • permalink
- #2 david:
That was precisely my point here.
To comment on Tim’s blog, you click the Comments link.
To post on Tim’s blog, you must be Tim or Andrea.
Now the little fly has become Seth Brundle, and everyone’s more confused than ever. Should’ve just waved it away when it first appeared.
Posted by Rittenhouse on 2005 11 15 at 12:57 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
