We read with interest the lead story in yesterday's Metro section, "Hell's Kitchen, Swept Out and Remodeled." We're always intrigued by the changing face of the city, we're recently frustrated by the disappearance of neighborhood quirks and characters, and we're saddened by the increasing unlikelihood of ever again finding rival dancing gangs on the West Side. And while the article touched on all those points, we were most intrigued by this one:

Published in yesterday's paper:

This morning MSNBC gossip Jeannette Walls considers the problem of notorious Scientologist John Travolta agreeing to play Edna Turnblad in the forthcoming movie of Hairspray, given that Scientology is pretty notoriously antigay:

"How Blonds Evolve," Reading File, Week in Review, Sunday:

Yesterday's Life & Style has a great speculative scoop: Could hottie stoner Matthew McConaughey be married? Perhaps to his girlfriend, Penelope Cruz? The mag has a photo of him wearing what seems to be a wedding band on his left ring finger, so it would seem he's done the deed, right? Well, actually, no: As the backwards Nike swoosh on his shorts indicates, the photo is flipped and the ring is on his far less interesting right hand. Which the folks at L&S's Bauer stablemate, In Touch Weekly, were able to figure out.

For the moment we'll ignore the Village Voice's repugnance in attempting to remove all traces of Nick Sylvester's at least partially fabricated cover story from its website. (Whether you like it or not, guys, you published the flawed work, and it's part of the historical record, and while of course you should attach an explanatory and corrective note, it's deeply disgusting to watch a newspaper — a newspaper! — try to throw inconvenient facts down the memory hole.) Instead we're treating it as a cat-and-mouse game.

We were marveling today at Page Six's rakish lan in passing off an admission of its screwup yesterday as though somehow the underlying facts had changed:

For Borat Sagdiyev of Kazakhstan, on the other hand, there will be a whole different set of challenges.

New York Times

Here's part of an O'Reilly Factor transcript:

Multiple sources within 4 Times Square report that Kim France, the editor-in-chief of Lucky, the Conde Nast shopping magazine, just triumphantly announced that Hearst is closing Shop Etc., the rival mag company's rival shopping magazine. "She's ecstatic," says one tipster.

Life & Style rocked our world today — rocked all our worlds — with some of the most shocking celeb news since the last time a sham Hollywood couple split up: Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, the mag says, are splitting up. While we're all processing this information, it seems a good time to take a look back at some of Life & Style's recent greatest hits.

Former Radar contributing writer — and current freelancer about town — Tyler Gray has a problem. It's with Men's Fitness EIC Neal Boulton and, specifically, with Boulton's insipid-bordering-on-unintelligible Editor's Letter. With Radar no more, Gray brings his analysis of Boulton's monthly idiocy to Gawker, where we're now proud to present Gray's look at Boulton's March letter...

"Bush Shifts on Muslim Protests," by Jim VandeHei," The Washington Post, A1:

It's unlike Sunday Styles to actually contain some news you can news — as opposed to news that is utterly impractical and useless, and which you love to hate or hate to love. But yesterday the Times reporter formerly known as Jodi Wilgoren finally explained everything:

Also, we hear there's a whole bunch of fags skiing.

We have no idea why it took the Times a full month to correct this one, but there are few things we hate more than inaccuracies involving roller derby. From today's Times corrections column:

It's a classic New York story: Some people shoved a mattress in a hole cut in a wall, then put the space for rent ($35) on Craigslist. One person who looked at the mattress was a man named Drew, who didn't want his last name published.

The first month of the year new year ended yesterday, and, in addition to giving us a fresh page on our big wall calendar, it also meant it was time to check on all our favorite New York Times cultural critics to figure out who gets to wear the "Most Inaccurate January" sash.

As we said before, you get what you pay for. And that doesn't include a calculator.

Jesus H. Christ. Two corrections in the same edition? Shit. Who could imagine such a thing? Certainly not us, which is why we missed the second one the first time around.