Derek Donovan, the readers’ representative of the Kansas City Star, yesterday took the unusual step of writing a blog post that invited readers to offer suggestions about the wording for a correction he was working on. From his post:
As I’ve written before, it’s The Star’s policy not to restate an error in a correction …
There was an error in yesterday’s paper that’s a little tougher. A story about the last time gas was this cheap listed other things going on in the coutry at the time. Among them, “Marines in Iraq committed a variety of abuses against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”
Problem is that Abu Ghraid was an Army prison, and those accused were in the Army, not the Marines. Big, big difference — and I understand any Marines who were offended by the mistake.
Right now, I’m leaning toward wording the correction thusly:
An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Does that work? How could it be worded better?
The Star isn’t alone in having a policy that proscribes repeating the original error in a correction. Donovan writes that reprinting the mistake is “a bad idea because it puts the mistake in the paper a second time.” True, but repeating the mistake can also help people understand the nature of the original error. Some corrections are borderline incomprehensible due to the “don’t repeat the error” dance. Not repeating the error can raise questions in the reader’s mind. Take Donovan’s proposed correction:
An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
With this wording, the only way to understand the nature of the paper’s error is to go back and read the original article. Maybe the story had said soldiers abused prisoners at a different prison? Maybe it reported the CIA had abused the prisoners? Or that the soldiers had abused Taliban prisoners? As worded, it doesn’t answer a fundamental question: what did the paper get wrong? Here’s a different option:
An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers, not Marines, abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Or, for the don’t repeat the error fans out there:
An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section incorrectly identified those responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It should have referred to Army soldiers.
I’m sure an editor could improve my wording, but you get the idea.
As a final note, it’s great that Donovan used his blog to share this process with readers and invite their input.
UPDATE Nov 27: This correction was published today by the paper:
A story in the Nov. 25 FYI misstated which branch of the military was involved in abuses at Abu Ghraib. Army soldiers mistreated Iraqi prisoners there.
A nice comprise compromise, I think.
