Another error in Sports Illustrated

[Baron Scicluna]

In an otherwise interesting profile on Blazers and Seahawks owner Paul Allen, SI ran a photo of Allen talking to kicker Josh Brown. Only, instead of Brown, the caption says Matt Hasselbeck. You can clearly see the No. 3 on the shoulderpad of Brown's uniform.

 

[Small Town Guy]

In an otherwise interesting profile on Blazers and Seahawks owner Paul Allen, SI ran a photo of Allen talking to kicker Josh Brown. Only, instead of Brown, the caption says Matt Hasselbeck. You can clearly see the No. 3 on the shoulderpad of Brown's uniform.

Damn ad department.

Over thanksgiving, was checking out some of my dad's SI's again. His go back to the early 70s. They had a front of the magazine profile in an issue in the 1980s on the guy who was the "final reader" of the magazine. After everyone has read it, he read every story and every word right before it goes to press to check for errors/typos. Maybe that position was eliminated over the years.

 

[playthrough]

I can hear that conversation in production: "don't we have a photo of Allen with someone other than the freaking kicker?" "No, but the kicker could be someone else, who's gonna notice?"

Pretty sweet boat Allen's got, though.

 

[ondeadline]

Speaking of this week's SI, this was definitely the farewell column for Reilly.

 

[Double Down]

Speaking of this week's SI, this was definitely the farewell column for Reilly.

A pretty weak goodbye, I thought. I don't know. I honestly was expected something really good, and it was just blah. Especially the ending.

 

[clutchcargo]

God forbid, SI made another error. Thanks goodness, you took the time and made the effort to let us in on that.

Here's the challenge I put out to any weasel who wants to gig SI for an error on this site.

Next time you catch SI in an error and feel compelled to bring it to our attention, demonstrate some fair play and tell us the basics of the most recent error needing correction that YOUR shop made.

If you are unwilling to do that, then keep your finger pointing to yourself.

 

[Double Down]

So if I work for The New Yorker, which never makes errors, can I riddle SI's shoddy copy editing at will, or do I need a hall pass first?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Errors happen to the best of us. I work in a small shop, where staffers do it all, writing, copy editing, page design, web work, in one shift. Do we try our best? Yes. Do errors get through, because everyone is busy with their own work and doesn't have time on deadline to proof a page as well as they want to? Yes.

But when you're Sports Illustrated, a publication that comes out once a week, with the resources that they have, mistakes should be extremely rare. How many times on this board have people pointed out mistakes this magazine has made? How many times do people write letters to the editor of SI pointing out errors, only to see in italics, the words "SI regrets the error".

This error could have been rectified with one brief look at the Seahawks' roster. "Who wears No. 3? It's Josh Brown." Yes, Brown and Hasselbeck do bear a resemblance. But you would think that somebody would have taken the time to check that ID one more time.

 

[BTExpress]

They had a front of the magazine profile in an issue in the 1980s on the guy who was the "final reader" of the magazine.

Jeremiah Tax.

Why I remember that I'll never know.

But when you're Sports Illustrated, a publication that comes out once a week, with the resources that they have, mistakes should be extremely rare.

--- Resources: They have human beings . . . who make mistakes.

--- Once a week: Yes, and they also had 72 pages, with much of the copy coming in the last 36 hours. How many pages did YOUR section publish in the past week.

--- Rare: They are rare. Have you ever seen the "Corrections and Clarifications" section in The New York Times? There are a dozen or more EVERY DAY. And this is the best newspaper in the country, the "Sports Illustrated" of newspapers, as it were.

Hope that covers everything.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

My shop: About half the pages, with one-tenth the staff, at least. And we're all working on other projects as well as putting out the daily paper.

Like I said in my last post, yes, people make errors, myself included. I've never said I was perfect. Somebody alluded in another thread about copy editors at the Washington Post looking at three stories a day, and that every single fact is checked and double-checked. I think the standards at a place like SI should be just as high. I understand, it may be not be possible, due to budget cutbacks and such.

I'm not so shallow that I would point out a poor piece of grammar, or a misplaced comma. Like I said, stuff like that happens. As a longtime subscriber to SI (over 20 years), I have been finding more and more mistakes in the magazine each week. I just find it difficult to believe that there was not one person who looked at that page who noticed that the Seahawks guy wore No. 3. Does that mean that I'm canceling my subscription? No. I enjoy reading it each week, even when there are stories that other people bash about on this site.

 

[shockey]

another error was in damon hack's piece on the browns. regarding the situation of qb derek anderson, a restricted free agent, damon offered that they can sign him to a long-term deal; tender him a contract requiring a first and third-round pick as compensation from whatever team signs him if they opt not to match, or slap him with the franchise tag, requiring compensation of two first-round picks from the team that signs him.

SAY WHAT? the franchise tag deal is only for unrestricted free agents. this kind of eff up never used to happen in the place where sharp reporting, editing and fact-checking were once king. :o :o :o

 

[BTExpress]

As a longtime subscriber to SI (over 20 years), I have been finding more and more mistakes in the magazine each week.

Several reasons for that:

--- There is more IN the magazine than there was 20 years ago. More cutlines to screw up. More tidbits. More blurbs. Whether it is "better" than it was 20 years ago will always be a point of debate around here. But it cannot be denied that -- unlike just about every other publication undergoing draconian cutbacks --- SI is actually producing more editorial copy than they ever have.

--- They are pushing deadline on more items.

--- Perception has changed. You say you are "finding" more errors. That doesn't mean there are more. You may be reading with a more cynical eye. Over time our perception changes. 30 years ago I eagerly anticipated 8 pages of swimsuit coverage. Today a 140-page swimsuit issue does nothing for me. But it's not the magazine's fault.

SAY WHAT? the franchise tag deal is only for unrestricted free agents. this kind of eff up never used to happen in the place where sharp reporting, editing and fact-checking were once king

That's because there was no free agency, unrestricted or otherwise, no salary cap, no franchise tag in those days.

100 facts are tougher to check than 70.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

BTE: I agree with you on the last thought. 15-20 years ago, I thoroughly enjoyed the swimsuit issue. Now, I like it, but I'm not drooling over it.

Of course, my hormones are a little calmer now from when I was a teenager.

 

[BTExpress]

BTE: I agree with you on the last thought. 15-20 years ago, I thoroughly enjoyed the swimsuit issue. Now, I like it, but I'm not drooling over it.

Of course, my hormones are a little calmer now from when I was a teenager.

And 30 years ago, I eagerly anticipated my Thursday arrival of SI.

Today: "Gee, it's already Thursday? I haven't even looked at half of last week's issue."