During a recent visit to Doha, I took a courtesy tour of both the Arabic and English studios at al-Jazeera Network. At the Arabic network studio, our guide pointed out the “language correction” desk, a large oval table towards the back of the large studio with approximately eight stations. When we got to the end of the English studio tour, I asked the guide if there was a language correction desk here as well. As I anticipated, he said, “No there isn’t! Is that an oversight on our part?” This paper investigates a set of questions highlighted by this disparity. Why does al-Jazeera budget for a team of Arabic language correctors but not English ones (money being a tangible indication of the importance of this function)? Is the nature of Arabic different than that of English? Does the so-called diglossic nature of Arabic necessitate more intervention? Is it difficult to find journalists whose Standard Arabic (Fusha) skills are acceptable? I argue that this policy is the result of a pervasive ideology of “language correctness.” Al-Jazeera’s own mission statement warns its journalists that its “language is Fusha” and “the failure to use correct words and expressions diminishes the accuracy of the material, and poor style negatively impacts the reputation of the network.” (www.aljazeera.net). The trustworthiness of the journalist relies in part on her/his linguistic “correctness.” This ideology has a long history: I will trace its origins of back to the emergence of the grammatical genre “Errors of the Commoners” (lahn al-‘amma) in the ninth century. It was revived along with many other literary genres during the Nahda around the turn of the twentieth century. I will link these manifestations of language correctness (read also: authenticity) ideology in these periods to socio-political factors as well. What is al-Jazeera’s role is perpetuating this ideology? Even as the network has opened the door to a breadth of linguistic plurality never before heard in a public forum, its policies reinforce the traditional structure of power that gives someone other than the writer or speaker the authority to evaluate and correct. At the same time, networks such as LBC and OTV are challenging Fusha by broadcasting news in other registers. In the end, perhaps the question of the authority, authenticity, and trustworthiness of Fusha will not be decided at the “language correctness” desk of Al-Jazeera, but by viewers across the Arab world.