No, because then it would be the family member's error, not the writer's.
An error by the writer? The correction is sufficiently ambiguous that we do not know what type of error? No details.
True, but the description is sufficient to establish that the writer did not get the information from Obama.
Was the error because UPI believes was an error by their source(s), or was it that UPI just made the crap up?
Most likely the UPI reporter got the information from an unreliable source, such as Wikipedia, and UPI is too embarrassed to admit that detail.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet quite a sum on the proposition that the reporter got the erroneous information from Wikipedia.
UPI isn't exactly the cream of the journalism profession.
Without seeing the real Obama birth certificate, either one of the listing of Obama's birth hospitals could be an error.
True, Obama has lied a lot, and if he had something to gain by lying about being born at Kapiolani, I would be more skeptical.
But he has nothing to gain from lying about the hospital. Whether he was born at Kapiolani, or Queens, or at home is irrelevant to his eligibility. So long as he was born in Hawaii, as proven by state records, it doesn't matter.
Obama benefits from the confusion. His whole life is all about confusion. When someone promotes a state confusion about the facts in his life he has something to hide.
So long as he was born in Hawaii, as proven by state records, it doesn't matter.
That remains to be seen. As you well know, the Hawaiian state records could have been falsified, and if it was falsified, it was most likely done by a family member's statement to the Hawaiian Department of Health in 1961.