To the Editor

Corrections or additions?

This article was prepared for the December 5, 2001 edition of U.S.

1 Newspaper. All rights reserved.

Between the Lines

About a week ago, around 7:30 a.m., one of our editors

sat drinking coffee and reading the New York Times’ bulletins from

Afghanistan. The story was packed with names of unfamiliar men,

cities,

targets, even items of dress. Suddenly our editor was roused from

her early-morning lethargy by a sentence in which the reporter

compared

the splattering of political divisions on that pulverized nation’s

map to a painting by American artist Jackson Pollock — a fair

comparison, except Jackson Pollock’s name was spelled incorrectly.

Our editor’s blood pressure rose. "How can a writer, a newspaper,

and an entire society take an artist and his work as common currency,

and yet not even bother to spell it correctly," she harangued

her semi-conscious family. "It’s happening again. American artists

get no respect. First it was Georgia O’Keeffe, now Jackson

Pollock!"

Failing to get a rise out of the breakfast crowd, she went to her

computer, and fired off an early-morning letter to nytnews@NYTimes.com

The reaction stems from an unfortunate truth: that a simple error,

repeated often enough, takes on the appearance of fact. Newsprint

has a way of conferring credibility.

Fortunately, a publication with a pluralistic readership finds there

is always someone willing to go to bat for a maligned reputation or

careless reference. And within a day or two, the tables were turned.

An alert reader with an above-average knowledge of Chinese history,

wrote to dispute an item in our story on the "Modern Mongolia"

exhibit at the University of Pennsylvania Museum (November 21, 2001).

We apologize if we made Mr. Ho’s blood boil, too. And we thank him,

and all who take a minute or two out of their day to keep newspapers

honest.

Top Of Page
To the Editor

I AM ONE of your readers who moved from New Hampshire to this

area. We have been enjoying your papers.

In the November 21 issue we read the article "Mongolia Goes

Modern,

Reclaiming Genghis Khan." In the second paragraph, under the topic

"The Conquerors are Conquered," please note that "[by

the end of the 1600s,] Mongolia was taken over by the Chinese Manchu

Dynasty" seems not correct.

According to my studies, when I was in the university in China, the

Mongolia or Yuan Dynasty in China was taken over by the Ming Dynasty

in China. Ming Dynasty controlled over China for more than two

centuries.

Then Ming Dynasty was taken over by Manchu or Ching Dynasty who

controlled

China for more than two centuries, too. Your article may be based

on other historical facts. Please ask the writer of the said article

to clarify the above mentioned point.

Anyway it is an interesting article. We have enjoyed reading it.

Forward V.K. Ho, retired

Monroe Township

Editor’s Note: U.S. 1 writer Phyllis Maguire, who used as

her source the book, "Modern Mongolia," edited by exhibit

curator Paula L. W. Sabloff, indicates that the Manchu Dynasty began

its rule over greater Mongolia in 1691, a 275-year rule that ended

with the fall of the Manchu Dynasty, 1900 to 1911.


Previous Story


Corrections or additions?


This page is published by PrincetonInfo.com

— the web site for U.S. 1 Newspaper in Princeton, New Jersey.

Facebook Comments