CheckYourFacts.org has expanded on a previous report about the recently-launched New York Times corrections database. The new story offers more details about how the database works and how the paper will use it to track and improve accuracy. It also includes an interview with Greg Brock, the senior editor who oversees the database and the paper’s corrections. Reports CYF:
…The new Times database holds comprehensive information about the nature of errors made by reporters and editors. The editors fill in a number of fields, starting with where the error occurred (in a column, an article, a caption, a headline, a photo, or even a byline).
Next, they enter the field “identified by,” which names the person who called the error to their attention. The paper previously had no record of this information, which is particularly important for understanding the source of more questionable corrections.
The field “originator” points to person who came up with the story in question. “Category” lists the type of correction printed, usually “For the Record,” “A Correction,” or “Editor’s Notes.” Finally, the editor enters the person responsible, and a section for miscellaneous notes for pertinent information that does not fit anywhere else.
Sounds like the paper, which had to scrap an earlier version of the system, is gathering the appropriate information. One more thing:
Brock says the system will also allow the paper to track another common mistake made by reporters: using uncorroborated information from the Internet in their articles. “People turn to the Internet with a quick Google search, and put ‘Fact X’ in an article,” says Brock. “We know that’s happening, and we’ve asked people to please not do that.”
Nice. The subsequent interview with Brock also has him explaining how the paper will use the data it collects to make decisions for the paper. This is really key:
The purpose of this one is to pinpoint certain types of errors and how they’re happening. For instance, if we discover that “Department X” is having a lot of errors appearing in the Monday paper, it would probably tell us right off the bat that they’re lightly staffed on Sundays, and might need more help. It might be a department that, like “Culture,” for instance, would be putting out a Monday paper that has a lot of articles that are prepared in advance. Perhaps they should have come in on Friday, but maybe are coming in late on Sunday afternoon. So, we can pinpoint a problem area.
It’s essential that the database is not only used to deliver a simple numerical tally. Its data should be put to use in evaluating reporters, finding weak spots in sections, and making staffing decisions. If a section’s head count goes down and the number of corrections spikes, then managers can see the effect that resources, and a lack thereof, have on accuracy.
Another topic of conversation with Brock is how this system could possibly catch another Jayson Blair-type earlier on. He notes that Blair “had 50 some corrections, but no one person knew. This department would use him, and he made a few errors. Then, another department would use him, and he’d made some more. And then when he got handed off in National, they didn’t know, and there was really no way to check. Plus, I don’t think anybody thought to check, frankly.”
The lack of a centralized system was certainly a factor, but there’s also the issue of severity to consider. Blair may have had a lot of corrections, but early on he had two back-to-back corrections that were the result of highly unethical behavior on his part. The first correction, from Oct. 23, 2001:
AN ARTICLE IN SOME COPIES on Sunday about a benefit at Madison Square Garden for victims of the Sept. 11 terror attack misstated the price of the most expensive tickets. They were $10,000, not $1,000.
The article also quoted incorrectly from a remark by former President Bill Clinton to the audience, many of them police officers and firefighters. Mr. Clinton said he had been given the bracelet of Raymond Downey, the deputy fire chief who died in the attack—not Chief Downey’s hat.
Referring to the terrorists, he said, “I hope they saw this tonight, because they thought America was about money and power. They thought that if they took down the World Trade Center, we would collapse. But we’re not about mountains of money or towers of steel. You’re about mountains of courage and hearts of gold, and I hope they saw you here tonight.” He did not say “hearts of steel.”
It was followed by another the next day:
AN ARTICLE IN SOME LATE EDITIONS on Sunday about the benefit concert at Madison Square Garden for victims of the Sept. 11 attack referred incorrectly to scenes in a short film made for the event by Woody Allen, “Scenes from a Town I Love,” which showed New Yorkers talking on cell phones. An actor in one scene complained that his anthrax drugs had been stolen by muggers; he did not say the police took them.
Another man talked about opening Starbucks coffee shops in Afghanistan after the war; he did not say one had already opened there.
The article also included two performers erroneously among the participants. Bono and the Edge, of the band U2, were scheduled to appear but canceled before the concert.
Blair hadn’t gone to the concert at all. He watched it on TV while drinking at a bar, and then just sent in a story as if he had been there. His editor found out and gave him a “a formal reprimand,” according to Seth Mnookin’s book about the scandal. But Blair remained at the paper for more than two more years before resigning in the face of growing accusations. So, aside from treating such egregious lapses in a more serious manner, perhaps the Times database could also include a means of rating the severity of an error?
Obviously, this is a subjective criteria. But frequency alone isn’t the only issue to consider. Content also matters.
