Michael Kinsley, Time-firee and bombed LA Times editorial page editor and current Washington Post opinionator, turns his eye to the ridiculousness that is the New York Times correction page. "Who can take facts seriously after reading the daily 'Corrections' column in the New York Times? Although the purpose of this column is to demonstrate the Times's rectitude about taking facts seriously, the facts it corrects are generally so bizarre or trivial and its tone so schoolmarmish that the effect is to make the whole pursuit of factual accuracy seem ridiculous." And where have we read all this before, except much better?

Oh right. The introduction to Renata Adler's 'Canaries in the Coalmine Mineshaft,' which destroyed the Lelyveldian institution of the niggling and absurd Times correction in the light of the Voter News Service election disaster and the Wen Ho Lee debacle.

You should go read the rest of that, it is all pretty fantastic.

In any event, isn't this an amazingly odd venue for Kinsley to so opine? Is the corrections department of the Washington Post so radically different? In some ways it is remarkably worse, as its online corrections page simply lists corrected articles in chronological order-as "bizarre" and "trivial" as they may be.