And no, a student newsletter put out by some high school in Honolulu doesn't count as a mainstream news source.
How do you know it was sloppy writing? You have evidence to the contrary that the source was not the Obamas? It was written in many publications that Obama was born at Queens. It wasn't until World Net Daily pointed out the discrepancy that Obama was born in two different hospitals that the press started to change the facts.
Obama and every single member of his family has always maintained that he was born in Kapiolani, the mistakes of sloppy reporters notwithstanding.
They were content and happy that Obama was reported to be born at Queens.
Because UPI admitted it.
You have evidence to the contrary that the source was not the Obamas?
Yes. There was nothing in the original story to indicate Obama was the source, and futher, UPI says the writer made the error:
"This item was corrected July 8, 2009, to fix the name of the hospital where Obama was born. The original item incorrectly identified the facility as Queen's Hospital, an error made by the writer."
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/04/Sen-Barack-Obama-Democrat-of-Illinois/UPI-33901225647000/
If the source had been Obama, then there would be something to indicate it in the original article, and it would be Obama's error, not the writer's.
It was written in many publications that Obama was born at Queens
Many? I know of only two: UPI and a high school student newsletter. Which other ones?
They were content and happy that Obama was reported to be born at Queens
And what makes you think they were even aware of the erroneous reports?
I seriously doubt Obama or any member of his family regularly reads either UPI or the rainbow newsletter.