Open
Open: Under Discussion
Open: Responded to
Closed: Corrected
Closed: Withdrawn
Closed: Unresolved
Off Topic
The story's error paints Steven Maviglio as alarmist: "Maviglio said the goal is unrealistic, as the state has only hit the proposed target (for lifting the suspension) three times in the past decade." But in other stories, he's been reported as saying three times in the last *3* decades.
(I've tweeted Maviglio and left a phone msg for him, asking him to confirm that this story's quote is the incorrect one)
Supporting Information:
In Sac Bee: "Opponents contend ...state records show that California has met the requirement only three times in the past three decades." - http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/2010/03/the-war-to-dera.html
"...only three times in the last 30 years" - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/threats-to-AB32.html
Response
Anna Haynes has contacted San Francisco Chronicle | SFGate and received the following response.
May 4: email from Ms Said saying "It's corrected online now, a print correction will run in tomorrow's paper" and apologizing (bad cell phone connection was likely culprit)
It's SF Chron policy to mark corrected articles as having been corrected, in bold, below the article, but it doesn't seem to be automatic & in this case there was initially no mention that this story had been corrected.
Thursday update (and closure) - The correction did run in print yesterday (corrections are in the lower left corner of A2), and the online article is now marked as having been corrected, in bold, below the article, in accordance with SF Chronicle policy.
Discussion Leave a comment
Maviglio tweets that it's "3x in 30 years" -
"DirtyEnergyProp doesn't suspend #ab32, it kills it. Economic conditions only 3x in 30 years. #climate"
http://twitter.com/stevenmaviglio/status/13322815988
Looks like the story has been updated on the web and a correction posted here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/05/MN621D9CE3.DTL
but as you say the Web version of the story doesn't indicate that the story was corrected, nor does it link to the correction notice.