Regret the Error

Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, focused yesterday’s column on what he sees as a possible rise in the number of Times stories being published without proper (or fair) sourcing. This has in turn resulted in a rise in Editor’s Notes explaining and apologizing for the lapses.
"Seeking comment from those written about, especially when they are put
in an unfavorable light, is a particularly important aspect of fair
coverage," he writes. "It helps ensure that readers get the most complete and
accurate view possible of a newsworthy development. Unfortunately, The
Times has had too many cases recently where subjects weren’t given a
chance to comment, or the attempt to reach them was insufficient."
Calame cites a few examples and then shares some interesting research. "I searched all Editors’ Notes in the paper starting in 1994 for reports
of instances where a fair chance to comment hadn’t been provided," he writes. "…I found indications, though not firm evidence, that The Times has
fumbled this vital aspect of fairness more frequently in the past three
years than it did in the previous decade. The average was roughly one
such note a year through 2003. Since then, however, the number has been
rising: three in 2004, four in 2005 and seven so far this year."
He notes that the perceived increase could be a result of the paper’s "greater transparency and openness to reader
complaints" and/or "the pressure to serve the
growing appetite of the Web version of the paper for fresh stories, as
well as video and audio reports."
We’re often asked if we think the level of accuracy in the press is getting better or worse. It’s a difficult question to answer, but one thing we note is that the mainstream press today probably gets away with less errors. There is increased scrutiny and people can easily fact check reporting, often in a matter of seconds. As a result, we tend to be more suspicious of a media outlet that runs very few, rather than very many, corrections.
So, perhaps some of these omitted sources are just faster to notice and act on their exclusion than they were in the past. Not that that diminishes Calame’s point. (In fact, it makes one wonder how many still slip through.) This problem is even less excusable today in light of the easy availability of email addresses, land line and cell phone numbers and other forms of contact information. Just as the mistake is easier to spot, it’s also easier to prevent.
The bottom line is that not trying to contact such an important and necessary source is an unacceptable oversight, and a reporter from the Times expresses that very clearly at the end of the column. Like preventing errors, this requires constant vigilance mixed with effective training and some good old common sense.
"The need for comment is sometimes painfully obvious," writes Calame. Reinforcing this basic practice is one way to ensure fairness in reporting and help prevent embarrassing Editor’s Notes and corrections.
The Times is by no means alone in this; for example, check out this recent similar (and serious) lapse by the Los Angeles Times.

 Report an error