Spot the problem with this sentence:
Britons were proud that Tony Blair speaks very good French, just as Australians are proud that their premier, Kevin Rudd, is fluent in Chinese.
Australia doesn’t have a premier, we have a prime minister. Not to mention that it’s a bit sloppy calling Mandarin “Chinese”. I can let that one slide since that sloppiness is pretty common practice but premier as a synonym for prime minister? That’s just out and out wrong.
How come every time I know anything about a subject the New York Times gets it wrong? I thought it was the paper of record not of egregious errors.