What is it with the New York Times that it just can't spell names correctly?
There are two howlers in this morning's paper. The "Making Books" column in the arts section makes reference to "Opra Winfrey's book club." Ms. Winfrey is one of the most famous celebrities in America. Her name adorns her television show and the covers of countless magazines. She spells her first name "Oprah," with an "h" at the end.
In the national section, a news story that runs under the headline "Republicans Call Gore Solicitation Misleading" quotes "Ian Striton, an F.E.C. spokesman." On second reference, the Federal Election Commission spokesman is referred to as "Mr. Striton." The spokesman's last name in fact is "Stirton." This error is egregious because it marks the second time in a month that the Times has managed to misspell Mr. Stirton's name. The September 9 edition of Smartertimes.com pointed out the first error, which occurred in the September 9 edition of the New York Times. But the error is particularly egregious because on Monday, September 25, the Times ran a correction of the initial mistake. That correction said, "An article on Sept. 9 about Aristotle International, a political consulting firm that has compiled the nation's largest voter databank, misspelled the surname of a Federal Election Commission spokesman who commented on the use of the commission data for commercial purposes. He is Ian Stirton, not Sturton." So, even after running a correction in Monday's paper with the correct spelling of this man's name, the Times still manages to bungle the spelling of the name in Thursday's paper.
All of this may strike the average reader as nitpicking or trivial. But the Times routinely pounces on Republican politicians for lesser mistakes -- remember how long we heard about Dan Quayle's misspelling of "potato," and about George W. Bush's defense of his "subliminable" advertising? Those mistakes are made by politicians speaking off the cuff, without the safeguards the Times has of layer upon layer of highly paid and experienced editors whose job is, among other things, to spell names correctly. No one is expecting 100% accuracy on this, but the Times isn't anywhere near what other industries would consider an acceptable level of quality control.
Bush Leads in a Tie: Now that George W. Bush is pulling ahead of Al Gore in some national polls, the Times has decided to declare Mr. Bush's lead to be nonexistent. Hard to believe, but that is what's going on in a story in the national section that runs today under the headline, "Despite Ups and Downs, Surveys Show Race is Tied." This is how the New York Times interprets a new L.A. Times poll showing Mr. Bush with a six-point lead among likely voters: "since the margin of sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points, the findings have to be considered a statistical tie." The Washington Post's Richard Morin and Claudia Deane took up this issue yesterday, interviewing five polling experts. All five of those experts -- Warren Mitofsky, Paul Lavrakas, Jim Beniger, Philip Meyer and Larry McGill -- gave exactly the opposite assessment. The five Washington Post experts said a lead is a lead, not a tie or a "statistical tie," even if the lead is within the poll's margin of error. It's interesting that the Times has suddenly decided to air its unconventional views on poll interpretation now that Mr. Bush is experiencing a boost in the polls.
Wrong Photo Cutline: A photo cutline in the national section of today's New York Times identifies a man speaking at a congressional hearing on AIDS prevention as the provost of Harvard University, Harvey Fineberg. While it may be Fineberg out of focus in the left background of the photo, the large, in-focus man with the moustache who is at the center of the photo is not Fineberg, but someone else.