Every newspaper, no matter how hard it tries, sometimes makes mistakes. When The Blade does, it tries hard to correct the error, both by fixing the story in its electronic library and by running an item in the printed paper on the second page of the first section.

But reader Rick Reau wrote recently to say, “I’ve always had a problem with how The Blade presents its corrections.”

Specifically, he doesn’t like that he can’t always tell from the correction what the original mistake was.

“Now even though the correction is stated properly, it leaves out the mistake that was printed, which means the reader has to go back to yesterday’s edition to see just how big of a mistake it was.”

Mr. Reau suspected that was because the editors are trying to cover up enormous mistakes. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, based on several corrections I looked up.

Kurt Franck, The Blade’s executive editor, explained the policy this way. “I was taught at three newspapers where I have worked to avoid reintroducing the mistake in the correction — because you could end up making the same error again.”

That’s understandable. Believe it or not, your ombudsman has worked at a paper where that actually happened — twice.

However, I also sympathize with Mr. Reau; it is frustrating to read anything in any paper and not be able to understand it, and not everyone keeps a stack of papers for reference.

No system is perfect, or likely to satisfy everybody.

My suggestion to the editors — and I only have the power to suggest — is that corrections give enough information to tell what the story was about without risking a repeat of the error.

Perhaps something like these hypothetical examples: “A story Tuesday on the ABC glass company gave the wrong nation as its chief overseas supplier. It is actually Namibia.” Or, “A story May 12 had the wrong winner of the 1980 U.S. Senate race in Ohio; the contest was won by Democrat John Glenn.”

The Pages of Opinion, incidentally, handle corrections separately, and run them on those pages.

● Reader John F. Weber of Swanton was angered by the opinion page on Sunday, April 12. A column by Charles Krauthammer at the bottom of the page attacked President Obama’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran. “Anatomy of a disaster: U.S. conceded too much to Iran in nuclear deal.”

What bothered him was that embedded in the text of the column is a cartoon by David Horsey of Los Angeles Times. The cartoon shows a GOP congressional leader asking how many of his troops would prefer war with Iran to “Obama’s crappy deal.”

All of them do. But when asked who would be willing to send their own son or daughter to fight, the only one who volunteers is someone who is sterile and presumably has no children.

“I understand that it’s an editorial page and you are entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to do is attach your opinion to Mr. Krauthammer’s column,” as if it were part of his argument.

Your ombudsman can see his point. The cartoon, which is in color, was boxed with the column, and looks in fact like it is part of it.

However, if you look at it closely, it is clearly by a different author. Part of the problem may be that no person working in newspapers would think the cartoon and the column were the same.

But I can see how a casual observer might think they were. However, in the editors’ defense, the cartoon does not in fact contradict the column. One could be both against President Obama’s nuclear policy vis-à-vis Iran — and bemoan congressional hypocrisy.

Indeed, some conservatives did precisely that when it turned out that almost no congressmen had children who fought in Iraq.

Additionally … political cartoons are called cartoons for a reason. They may have a point, but they usually do so in a wry to snarky way, which isn’t intended to be taken totally seriously.

In fact, on the page directly from this particular column there is another political cartoon by The Blade’s Kirk Walters, which shows two men in a tiny boat who find themselves on the head of a giant dragon labeled “racism.”

“Holy Cow — it still exists?” says one man. Your ombudsman thinks you can clearly draw the conclusion that Mr. Walters thinks racism is still a huge problem in this country. I do not, however, think we can infer he thinks boaters need to worry about giant dragons.

● Reader Rich Campbell had an interesting question, not about the content of The Blade’s stories, but the ink they are printed with.

“One of my favorite things about The Blade was the fact that the ink did not come off the page and all over my hands and clothes.”

Lately, however, he told me he had noticed ink on his hands. “Have changes been made?” he asked me.

The answer is, in fact, yes, said Joseph H. Zerbey IV, The Blade’s president and general manager. The newspaper is now printed at a plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., that uses a different printing process, known in the trade as offset. “The offset printing process uses a recyclable ink that is oil-based, made from soybeans,” he said.

“The soybean oil ink does have a certain amount of rub-off, which is harmless; the oil itself is both recyclable and degradable.”

It also comes off easily when you wash your hands.

Anyone who has a concern about fairness or accuracy in The Blade is invited to write me, c/​o The Blade; 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, 43660, or at my Detroit office: 563 Manoogian Hall, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; call at 1-888-746-8610; or email me at OMBLADE@aol.com . I cannot promise to address every question in the newspaper, but I do promise that everyone who contacts me with a serious question will get a personal reply. Reminder, however: If you don’t leave me an e-mail address or a phone number, I have no way to get in touch with you.

Jack Lessenberry is a member of the journalism faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit and a former national editor of The Blade.

First Published May 24, 2015, 4:00 a.m.