June 7, 2013 | By Greg Fisher

From: Greg Fisher
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:29 AM
To: Mark Price, labor economist, Keystone Research Center
Cc: Liz Forgan, Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and chairwoman, Scott Trust [Guardian]; Corrections, The Guardian
Subject: RE: credit score, employers, Guardian, conflation

See http://creditscoring.com/influence/.../pennsylvania.html.

You are confused. Neither the text you pasted, the document it comes from nor the image you attached contain the word score.

There is a big difference between a credit report and a credit score. The latter is just a number. What is your understanding?

--
Greg Fisher
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342

From: Mark Price
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:02 PM
To: greg@creditscoring.com
Cc: Liz Forgan, Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and chairwoman, Scott Trust [Guardian]; Corrections, The Guardian
Subject: Re: credit score, employers, Guardian
Attachment: FB-HighlightedPost.png

Thanks for your feedback.

http://www.demos.org/discredited-how-... -out-job

Today, it is common for employers to look at job applicants' personal credit history... [Actually, he copies and pastes from the executive summary of the linked document above. Ed.]... conclude that employment credit checks illegitimately obstruct access to employment, o&en[SIC] for the very job applicants who need work the most.

--
Mark A. Price, PhD
[email]
Labor Economist
Keystone Research Center
www.keystoneresearch.org
[address]
[address]
[phone]

From: Greg Fisher [mailto:greg@creditscoring.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:40 PM
To: Liz Forgan, Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire, and chairwoman, Scott Trust [Guardian]; Corrections, The Guardian
Cc: Mark Price, labor economist, Keystone Research Center
Subject: credit score, employers, Guardian

Irresponsibly, you published: “Employers, inundated with job applications, are taking shortcuts to winnow the field of job applicants, eliminating from consideration applicants who are currently unemployed or have been out of work for more than a few months. Some are excluding job candidates with their credit score.”

Ucgh. Employers do not use credit scores because they cannot even get them.

I don’t tell humanity inaccurate things about your country, so, please, stop publishing false statements about mine.

But let's not quarrel over well-established fact; we both have more important things to do. Just make a correction as loud and broad as your error, and move on.

Currently, as I wrap up the first five years of my coverage on this massive media, government and industry screw-up, I am amusing myself with another myth: One about who, actually, is U.S. Senate Majority Leader. It is fascinating, and a fundamental example of a fundamental of your industry: The error and its correction.

Make no mistake. While the employers/credit scores folly has dire consequences, to do this kind of thing day-in and day-out you have to find some fun in it. And, I have to admit: It is fun to tell foreigners what to do. So, on that international note, here is something we all—American, British and Canadian—can laugh at: In your 2013 piece, you linked to Reuters—an organization run by a guy who is an actual baron. Is there a way to challenge his designation? Obviously, you are pretty loose at assigning titles.

And, finally, I’m sorry about that whole Dickens/international copyright thing, but that was a long time ago.

Anyway, on to the business at hand. Your document titled “Editorial Guidelines – Guardian News & Media Editorial Code” states, “It is the policy of the GNM to correct significant errors as soon as possible.”

What are your definitions of soon and significant? Is this significant?

--
Greg Fisher
The Credit Scoring Site
creditscoring.com
PO Box 342
Dayton, Ohio 45409-0342

PS. How is my English?

[see updates on this topic at blog.creditscoring.com/?tag=britain]