Well, it's not technically blogging ...

But I was asked to write a column for my newspaper's Web site on some copy-editing issues -- when readers complain about errors that aren't. I got to cover some of my favorite topics (including "just deserts" and "the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."

Check it out at The Morning News' Ask the Editor section.

Woops

A look at some posts today in my other blogging job shows the perils of relying on anonymous sources.

Politico.com broke the news that John Edwards was going to announce that his campaign was on hold because his wife's cancer was back.

Headline: Edwards to suspend campaign.

Then Edwards had his news conference, confirmed the cancer news, and said the campaign wouldn't be affected.

Politico's new headline: Edwards to continue campaign.

At least the hed writers have a sense of humor.

"That headline is one of the worst I've seen in a long time"

"That headline is, like, one of the worst I've seen in a long time." — Chicago Tribune national reporter Jill Zuckman to Howard Kurtz, about this headline "Democrats, On the Offensive, Could Gain Both Houses" (via Romenesko)

Of course, the headline isn't wrong, and it is supported by the story, in my opinion. Democrats are almost sure to take the House, and they have a shot at taking the Senate too.

What does Zuckman say? "It goes way too far and, honestly, we don't really know what's going to happen on Election Day. We have an idea, but — but to say that the Senate is — you know, the Senate is a lot less at risk than the House is right now."

The headline doesn't say anything about the Senate but that it could go to the Democrats. But Zuckman's problem is that implies more than a possibility.

Chalk this up to one more problem with "could" headlines.