So basically, if a newspaper makes an error, and someone doesn't perform detailed research to invalidate it, well, hey, reputation is determined by more than just news stories. This theory would be fine if we were all district attornies. In the real world of job decisions, where our reputation is backed up by a resume and maybe a few references, it's utterly implausible.

But besides the ridiculously low standards of journalism articulated by Slate's editor-in-chief, why the initial skepticism of whether an inaccurate newspaper article can have damaging consequences? Frankly, I don't think the Times Public Editor even needs to bother establishing that. It should be understood by anyone who writes something publicly that words have power- let alone an editor.

As for the proposed remedy of setting up your own web site. There are a number of obvious problems that make the idea difficult to take seriously. One, by setting up the web site you will be drawing everyone's attention to the offending article, including those who wouldn't have seen it. Two, if you don't have any other content, how are you going to convince associates to link to your ever so interesting web site that says essentially, "Joe Shmo" is not a pedophile? Three, if you aren't a professional web designer your web site will shabby and reflect poorly on you. I could go on, but at this point I think I have devoted more thought to the idea than the original author.

I enjoy Slate's to-the-point contrarian attitude, but this article is all attitude no substance, or empathy.

"I enjoy Slate's to-the-point contrarian attitude...."

--Me, too. Although I hate to be participating in what seems to be a periodic exercise in "yank the reader's chain."

--In addition to your excellent points, I was thinking about how this might work in real life:

I'm a parent of young children. I come across an old article that Joe Schmoe, my neighbor, is a pedophile. I cannot verify his identity on my local law enforcement pedophile web site. Yeah, he seems like a nice guy, but pedophiles often are, at least that's what the press tells me. Can't be too careful; my kids are involved. I screw up the nerve to approach Joe Schmoe (and make no mistake, most people wouldn't even bother). I raise the difficult subject. Joe Schmoe of course is upset and denies it; may even threaten me because, although I'm being a prudent parent, I'm also an effing jerk. Am I going to take his denial as proof? Of course not. If his friends vouch for him, will that be convincing? Absolutely not. Who's going to admit his friend is a pedophile? Short of an all-states criminal background check, which I have absolutely no right or power to demand, my children are not going anywhere near that man.

--On the less dramatic, but equally important issue of employment decisions, many places won't even get back to applicants with a formal rejection, much less tell them why they were not chosen. It's not inconceivable that a person's career could be ruined based on a false information of which s/he was unaware or unable to counter.

--In addition, this kind of comment is particularly callous coming from a journalist because: 1) journalists are in a better position to defend themselves against false rumors; 2) journalists enjoy the benefit of the double standard from other journalists.

--Mr. Shafer, it's time to rejoin the real world and accept that most people do not think and act like journalists, the scrupulously careful ones, that is. They aren't paid to spend their days checking things out. As I said before, they're busy, or lazy, or gullible, or just plain stupid, some are even willfully malicious.