In my almost decade-long tenure monitoring The Stars accuracy, I can tell you sincerely that Ive found the journalists Ive approached about problems in their work want to get things right. I can recall only one instance where a Star staffer (who departed the paper years ago) argued against a correction that I thought was warranted. I won that contest, by the way.
But there are times when something probably should have been stated differently, yet I dont think a correction is justified.
The Page A-1 centerpiece Sunday looked at how the Great Recession has affected Americans in different age demographics. Almost all of what Ive heard from readers about the piece has been positive, with several people saying they saw themselves reflected in some of the examples.
But one reader objected to a definition in the segment on baby boomers. It described that group as a diverse demographic of nearly 80 million born between roughly 1946 and 1962.
My emailer wrote: I noticed an error in the definition of baby boomer generation dates (which) should be 1946 - 1964.
She is correct that 1946-1964 is probably the most-cited definition of that baby boom, at least on the free Web. A Nexis search shows its common in other publications.
My inclination here is that of one of the reporters I discussed the topic with: Theres no official era-naming agency in charge of such things. The Associated Press style book doesnt address it.
So would there be any point to a correction saying an era defined as roughly between these years is more often pegged to another end date?
Not to me. That would be an example of overzealous correction that would contribute to devalue the seriousness of the concept.