Regret the Error

That’s a line from a blog post by Guardian subeditor (copy editor) David Marsh. It’s long been a common refrain from journalists, especially editors. In fact, Mitchell V. Charnley said basically the same thing in the introduction to his 1936 study of newspaper accuracy, the first of its kind.

“As common as the layman’s superficial generalization that ‘the newspaper is always wrong’ is the newspaper man’s defense that the wonder is that so few errors get into print,” he wrote in an academic article published in 1936. Charnley also noted the “appalling opportunities for error in the smallest story.”

Marsh marshaled that maxim while explaining that today’s copy editors have to juggle laying out stories, editing copy, and writing headlines and photo captions. Other tasks are often piled on top of those. Now add the fact that many newspapers have reduced the ranks of copy editors, and you have an environment that’s ripe for error.

“One of our best subs, taken to task this morning for what I described as the unforgivable crime of putting an acute accent on the artist Edgar Degas’ surname in last week’s paper, held his hand up to the offence but pointed out that he had been working on seven different pages under severe time pressure,” Marsh writes. “Doubtless he had corrected many mistakes but the one he missed was, of course, what everyone noticed.”

Marsh chose to tackle this topic because of an old chestnut offered up by readers — the idea that the quality of newspaper writing, editing and accuracy is far worse than it was decades ago. Call it the Golden Age of Newspapers Gripe. Marsh writes that “like most golden ages, this one was entirely mythical.” His evidence is this astoundingly bad paragraph from an edition of the Guardian published 45 years ago:

The Republican National Comittee decided in the spring that its chances of the White House in 1964 would be very slim indeed if it did not capture California, the second largest state, in 1962. Nobody less than its strongest possible vote-getter would do to defeat the incumbent Governor, Edmund (Pat) Brown. When it said this, Mr Nion was looking towards Washington, but the committee was liiking at Mr Nixon. He would have to oick the candidate, and if he oicked another man, eho lost, the party would be loth to nominate for the Preidency a national leader whose influence could not carry his own state in a state election. Yet, if Mr Noxon ran himself and won, he would practiclly forsweat the presidency; for, like allaspiring governors, he has been bocal and bitter about men who use the governor’s mansion as a springboard int the White House.”

The findings of newspaper accuracy studies have been relatively consistent since Charnley’s 1936 report. Most have found an error rate of between 40 and 60 percent, meaning roughly half of all newspaper news stories in U.S. newspapers have some kind of error, be it factual or one of a more subjective nature. (These studies gather data by asking sources to fill out questionnaires about an article in which they were featured.)

But it should be noted that the most recent — and comprehensive – study found one of the highest error rates on record. Also, the recent rash of cuts and buyouts in American newsrooms, coupled with the demands of producing an online edition, have already offered at least one example of reduced quality.

Charnley was right about the many opportunities for error within any single article. That hasn’t changed. What has changed is that, inside many newspaper newsrooms, you have less fewer people doing more work. Copy editors, in particular, have become editors, proofreaders and designers. (And, as Marsh illustrates, bloggers.)

The danger today is that the Golden Age of Newspapers Gripe may soon become reality, even if Marsh’s maxim remains true.

(With thanks to Andrew Phillips for spotting Marsh’s post.)

 Report an error