As the Wikipedia article for the British newspaper The Guardian explains,
The nickname The Grauniad for the paper originated with the satirical magazine Private Eye. It came about because of its reputation for frequent and sometimes unintentionally amusing typographical errors, hence the popular myth that the paper once misspelled its own name on the page one masthead as The Gaurdian, though many recall the more inventive The Grauniad. The domain grauniad.co.uk is registered to the paper, and redirects to its website at guardian.co.uk.
The reputation for typographical laxity is apparently undeserved:
In fact, the paper was not more prone than other papers to misprints but because the paper was printed in Manchester, Londoners saw the first edition printed each night. National papers in Britain at this time contained large numbers of "typos" which they removed progressively as the night wore on and they were noticed. Thus a paper like The Times would have as many mistakes in the North of England as The Guardian did in London. However, because media opinion was set in London, only The Guardian got a bad reputation.
So it must have been a special treat for the Guardian's Media Monkey blog to post "Heff in a huff over Telegraph gaffes":
"Mnokey" is delighted to treat you to one of Daily Telegraph associate editor Simon Heffer's regular email missives berating journalists at the title for their spelling, style and grammatical errors.
The contrast between two papers' political stances probably provides additional schadenfreude. As Wikipedia explains
The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times. The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, also known as Tories, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.
Reading Mr. Heffer's email taught me a new term of art, literal:
There have been so many literals this week that I suspect some of you either never could spell, or have given up trying. Perhaps my favourite was "hocky mom", followed by "plumb compote" (bring on the lead poisoning).
Here literal is taken literally, which I've amazingly (literally?) never seen before. For literal as a modifier, the OED gives the gloss
A.1.b. Of a misprint (occas. of a scribal error): Affecting a letter.
with citations back to 1606:
1606 HOLLAND Sueton. To Rdr., If there happen to occur some Errata..ye will..either pass them over with connivency if they be literall or else taxe with some easie censure in case they be materiall.
For the noun version, the gloss is
B.2. Printing. A misprint of a letter.
with citations from 1622 onwards:
1622 R. HAWKINS Voy. S. Sea  Errata sic corrige… The litteralls are commended to favour.
1880 Print. Trades Jrnl. xxx. 6 We noticed rather a large number of literals.
The Media Monkey's commentary also hints at a whole universe of sociological concerns that may be new to American readers, at least in detail. For example:
But far more precious than the typos and the butter-fingered typing are those precious Telegraph values: "The style book also reminds us that our readers tend to eat Christmas lunch, not Christmas dinner; this is not the Daily Star."
And fictional characters must have the correct titles: "An article on the new film Australia this week referred to the heroine as being first Lady Sarah Ashley and then Lady Ashley. She cannot be both. In the film she is the daughter of an earl, and therefore the first style is correct. Talking of names, if we have in future to refer to Nicholas Hoogstraten it will be thus; the 'van' is an affectation (this is known to some as the 'Fayed rule')." Hoogstraten is, alas, not fictional.
But does the Hoogmeister have Christmas dinner or Christmas lunch? And is the Heff invited?
For more context on the lunch-v.-dinner business, the Wikipedia article on U and non-U English is a useful resource for outsiders.