The Boston Transcript paper had an unwavering injunction against any reference to anatomy. It was a delicate one, that is, eyes or noses were permitted but navels were not.
On one occasion there came a reporter who used the word “navel” in an article. When the managing editor spotted it, the edition was already under printing. As he had no luxury of replacing the article with another one, he ordered to just pull out the word from the typesetter, and reprint the edition.
As a result, on the paper sold on the street on that evening appeared an article that a concert musician had been “in a state of repose as complete as that of a Buddhist regarding his .”
The managing editor had time to spot the forbidden word, but not enough time to read the full context. If he had, he would have understood that it was a review of a concert, and that the writer was trying to report how wonderful the concert was, describing a moment he especially got impressed, which he compared to a pose of Zazen performance which he believed to be a training by Buddhists. The managing editor could have, further, decided that the violation was an innocent one and could have kept printing the edition as it was at his own discretion.