Sheesh.

I'll just let you read this a few times and think about what happened here.

It's not even the error that really bothers me, because I can totally see how anyone could make a mistake like this. It's late at night, you're rushing, and your layout guy grabs the wrong photo to be printed in colour on the front page above the fold and over the word "deceased". Maybe the images are slugged badly, or maybe the photo editor cropped out the wrong person, or maybe it's just a mouse-click error.

The point is, this is a terrible, horrible mistake. But it's one that, ultimately, could happen to anyone.

No, what bothers me about this is the casual response. A mistake like this deserves an editor's note about how it happened, a full apology, and a lot of grovelling. This is not a "whoops!" sort of error.

Well, I suppose the last line is partly correct. I'm embarrassed for the editors, and I'm confused about how this could be considered an appropriate response. So I guess it's nice to have the apology after all.

August 17

The latest Big News here in our smallish town is that our municipal council wants to buy all of the buildings along the most rough-and-tumble block in town. This is part of a much larger strategy to redevelop and revitalize the downtown area.

It's not clear what would happen to those businesses. All we really know is that a 24- to 48-unit housing project would be part of the redevelopment.

Most of the discussion has centred on the fate of a bar, the bar that is almost certainly the source of all of the need to revitalize the downtown area. It is, as our local paper says, notorious for drunken violence and drug overdoses. In the last few years, businesses throughout the downtown area have steadily moved uptown. The last time I walked through our downtown shopping mall, I was shocked to see that it was almost totally empty. Almost all of the shops were gone, and there were no customers. I don't blame them; although it's sad to see the city being hollowed out, each business independently made what was probably the right decision, and I didn't like shopping in that mall any more than others did.

If you only read the paper and listened to the news, you would think there are only two arguments to be made. Thanks, "streeter"-style coverage!

1. The bar is an eyesore and is contributing to the social problems that have been escalating downtown for years. It should be torn down.

2. It is a historic landmark. It should be left alone.

The bar is indeed an eyesore. It's also historic, and something of a landmark. And it's contributing to the social problems that have been escalating downtown for years. I am sympathetic to argument #1, unconvinced by argument #2, and wish we could have a discussion that would be a bit more nuanced and include ideas like this:

3. City Hall should not be in the real-estate business. That building and the others along that block are privately owned, and it is up to industry to develop them within the legal framework that's been established. If a private developer wanted to buy the strip without using tax dollars, that would be a different matter. Stop putting pressure on the owners to sell!

4. City Hall SHOULD be in the real-estate business when there's a public benefit. That's the only way to maintain some public control over the project. Do we want downtown revitalization to be all about profit and the bottom line?

5. The drunken violence and drug overdoses are enforcement issues. If the drunken violence moves elsewhere, will City Hall want to buy those buildings, too?

6. The downtown area needs safe, affordable housing. The strip should have been purchased and rezoned years ago.

7. City Hall is in no position to develop the area. They will almost certainly end up out of cash, and taxpayers will be on the hook. No more borrowing! Focus on providing basic services to residents!

8. The building is a historic landmark and should be preserved appropriately by the city.

I do not buy the argument that a building that is a historic landmark should be left to operate as a saloon until it is condemned or worse. This is not a legitimate point, just one that is easy to grab if you really just don't want your favourite watering hole to change. If it is truly a building with historical value, that is an argument for the city to take it over and preserve it in a respectful, historical way. The current setup is the last thing anyone should want for a building with public value.

Yes, I met Will and Kate

Many others did, too -- I won't pretend to be special -- but yes, I met the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and have photos of myself with them.

My father assures me that this is the biggest thing to ever happen to his small town (which I have only visited three times). His mantel now holds a photo of me with the duke. The print of the photo was given to him by someone in his church: the electronic version whizzed around town faster than I could ever have imagined.

Will and Kate seem lovely. They had an easy, simple way about them that put grins on the faces of everyone they met.

I have been asked dozens of times if William is handsome. The answer might be instructive to all men. Prince William is more handsome in person than he is in photographs.

This always prompts a follow-up question: does he look different in photos?

Men, take note: Prince William looks exactly the same in person as he does in photos. However, a photo does not capture the great respect he shows his wife. It may be cliched, but "princely" is the word that best describes him. His gentlemanly behaviour makes him far more handsome than any photo could capture.

And yes, Kate is beautiful.

Nobody burns with righteous indignation like a reporter who's found an error in a larger publication.

The other day, I read in a local magazine that a Vanity Fair photographer figured it would sound good to say we have no grass in town.

What pifflecock! We should all be horrified and offended, because this means we are hicks who don't have Internet access! And how can anyone get away with saying that it doesn't snow?

I always smile when I read these shock-and-awe columns from reporters who are aghast at finding errors in larger magazines. It is almost as if they don't know that their own stories contain errors that are just as ridiculous to people who are familiar with the topics they cover.

We do have grass. It is planted in most of our public parks, because as far as I can tell, it doesn't grow naturally in our region. The Vanity Fair photographer almost certainly stood on grass to take his photos during part of his stay. But I know what he meant. Part of his trip was to a fly-in-only area that really is "just trees and lakes", without the type of grass you'd find on a lawn. And it DOES get too cold to snow in the winter: it rarely snows during our coldest months. That said, I suppose I should temper my statement: I'm sure a meteorologist could provide a far more detailed and accurate explanation about our snowfall. I only know what I see out the window.

So, sure.

You see, I'm used to defending ridiculous errors in local publications. I think I should get to roll my eyes when they pretend the folks who "should know better" are the only ones who make mistakes.

Not dead

I've been very busy and am planning a long-anticipated holiday. I'm still considering what to do with my other site, and am thinking about moving most of my posts over here to make my life easier. We'll see. I probably won't make any decisions for a few weeks.

Adventures in Journalism: Infectious-Disease Edition

Reporter: We heard that someone at the jail is sick and the whole place is in lockdown!
Me: It's always locked down. It's a jail.

I love Facebook

I recently received this Facebook message, and it brought a huge grin to my face:

thanks cuz!! love you to!!! But don't lie you hate bad grammar(only spelled that right cause i saw how you spelled it) i'm smart and good looking but probally should have gone to class a little more often :-p