- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I was passing by my section's lobby in the shacks this morning when I came across a two page tribute to our fallen. The Toronto Star on July 8 printed a picture of each soldier with their name, age, rank and unit. The gesture was a good one and I'm sure was meant with the deepest respect. That being said someone made a large mistake in printing or at least in editing the page because Corporal Randy Payne's picture was not present. Instead a picture of Private Robert Costall was in his place with the incorrect name and info bellow it. What's more there was the exact identical photograph of Pte. Costall next to his own personal info.
Now I won't pretend to know Randy Payne personally, however, I did know of him and recognized immediately that the picture was not of him. However, even if I hadn't had prior knowledge of his appearance you would think that anyone with enough sense would be able to see that the photo they were pasting over Cpl. Payne's name was the exact same photo as the one posted above Pte. Costall's info (especially since the two photos were only two people apart).
I've already spoken to the Toronto Star's accuracy person and they were already aware of the misprint. However, they are simply going to make a point of it in the corrections section and not reprint the tribute. Personally, I think in this case these two pages deserve to be reprinted correctly. What say all of you?
Now I won't pretend to know Randy Payne personally, however, I did know of him and recognized immediately that the picture was not of him. However, even if I hadn't had prior knowledge of his appearance you would think that anyone with enough sense would be able to see that the photo they were pasting over Cpl. Payne's name was the exact same photo as the one posted above Pte. Costall's info (especially since the two photos were only two people apart).
I've already spoken to the Toronto Star's accuracy person and they were already aware of the misprint. However, they are simply going to make a point of it in the corrections section and not reprint the tribute. Personally, I think in this case these two pages deserve to be reprinted correctly. What say all of you?