Thanks for being a regular reader. You can check out the award-winning Regret the Error book here.
Reuters has made its internal Handbook for Journalists available to the public via the Internet. It posted the full document online and Dean Wright, Reuters’ global editor of ethics, innovation and news standards, wrote about it yesterday. (Romenesko spotted Wright’s post.) Here’s what Wright says about the Handbook:
The handbook is the guidance Reuters journalists live by — and we’re proud of it. Until now, it hasn’t been freely available to the public. In the early 1990s, a printed handbook was published and in 2006 the Reuters Foundation published a relatively short PDF online that gave some basic guidance to reporters. But it’s only now that we’re putting the full handbook online.
Several parts of the document address accuracy and corrections. Below are some of the more interesting parts.
Let’s start with "The 10 Absolutes of Reuters Journalism":
- Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
- Always correct an error openly
- Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
- Always reveal a conflict of interest to a manager
- Always respect privileged information
- Always protect their sources from the authorities
- Always guard against putting their opinion in a news story
- Never fabricate or plagiarise
- Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
- Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe Link
Accuracy
The handbook has an entire sub-section devoted to accuracy. It offers guidance on dealing with sources, quotes, datelines and reporting rumors, amoung other topics. Here are a few of the "accuracy is" or "accuracy means" paragraphs:
Accuracy entails honesty in sourcing. Our reputation for that accuracy, and for freedom from bias, rests on the credibility of our sources. A Reuters journalist or camera is always the best source on a witnessed event. A named source is always preferable to an unnamed source. We should never deliberately mislead in our sourcing, quote a source saying one thing on the record and something contradictory on background, or cite sources in the plural when we have only one…
Accuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality. It can be tempting for journalists to “hype” or sensationalise material, skewing the reality of the situation or misleading the reader or viewer into assumptions and impressions that are wrong and potentially harmful. A “flood” of immigrants, for example, may in reality be a relatively small number of people just as a “surge” in a stock price may be a quite modest rise. Stopping to think, and to discuss, how we use words leads to more precise journalism and also minimises the potential for harm. Similarly, no actions in visual journalism should be taken that add to or detract from the reality of images. In some circumstances, this may constitute fabrication and can cause serious damage to our reputation. Such actions may lead to disciplinary measures, including dismissal…
Accuracy is paramount in our use of datelines and bylines. Readers assume that the byline shows the writer was at the dateline. We should byline stories only from datelines where the writer (or the reporter being written up on a desk) was present. We may only use datelines where we have staff or freelancers on the spot from text, photos or TV and we are getting information from them on the ground. Reporters or freelancers who have contributed to a report should be included in an additional reporting line at the end of the story, giving their name and location…
Accuracy means proper attribution to the source of material that is not ours, whether in a story, a photograph or moving images. Our customers and the public rely on us to be honest about where material has originated. It allows them to assess the reliability…
As you can see, accuracy is a lot of things. Here’s some advice for dealing with sources:
- Cross-check information wherever possible. Two or more sources are better than one. In assessing information from unnamed sources, weigh the source’s track record, position and motive. Use your common sense. If it sounds wrong, check further.
- When doing initiative reporting, try to disprove as well as prove your story.
- Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong. Before pushing the button, think how you would withstand a challenge or a denial.
- Know your sources well. Consider carefully if the person you are communicating with is an imposter. Sources can provide information by whatever means available – telephone, in person, email, instant messaging, text message. But be aware that any communication can be interfered with.
Corrections & Erorrs
Reuters is transparent about errors. We rectify them promptly and clearly, whether in a story, a caption, a graphic or a script. We do not disguise or bury corrections in subsequent leads or stories. Our Corrections Policy is outlined in this Handbook. Link
The corrections policy contains a lot of technical information that’s specific to Reuters. However, the Handbook does include some good tips for avoiding errors. Some selected advice:
- Confirm the day of the week and the date.
- Check all the numbers – do all the components add up to the total, do individual percentages add up to 100? Double check the period covered, conversions, whether the figure is up or down. Watch for confusion between millions and billions, misplaced decimal points, transposed conversions. Check share prices.
- Watch the spelling of proper names and ensure names are spelled consistently throughout the story.
- Ensure the story gives full company names, full and proper titles, and RICs in both the text and header field. Check that unfamiliar RICs and web site addresses mentioned in the story actually work.
- Check for legal dangers and balance. Does the story cast a slur on the good name of an individual, company or organisation? Does it expose anyone to ridicule, hatred or contempt? Is the story balanced and fair? Link
Dealing With Hoaxes
One section provides a bit of guidance related to hoaxes:
Do a reality check. Does this information fit within the bounds of what was expected? Any wild divergences are a clue you may be viewing information in the wrong context. Link
But here’s the best part — a guide to not getting fooled:
- Regard all information you receive by telephone as suspect unless you know the caller. If you do not know the caller, ask for the person’s full name, title and telephone number. Rather than take it for granted that the name and number are authentic, check such details independently though an organisation’s or company’s switchboard, online searches and other journalistic means.
- Telephone the person back. Get confirmation that it was indeed that person who telephoned you.
- Use the same precautions with unsolicited material received by e-mail, fax, instant message, other electronic means, SMS or in the mail.
- Be on guard against April Fool hoaxes on or around April 1 and all fantasies such as the birth of five-legged sheep, human pregnancies lasting 18 months, the marriage of 100-year-old sweethearts, perfect bridge hands and miracles.
- Follow the checking procedure even if it means delaying a story until you are sure of its accuracy.
- Use nothing found on the Internet, even from what appears to be a genuine corporate or institutional site, that is not sourced in a way that you can verify. Many corporate announcements and much economic data are now released online. Reporters need to be familiar with how news sources in their areas of expertise distribute information. Be suspicious of online information that is a complete surprise or appears in an unexpected place. Ask yourself if this is how an organisation normally delivers news? If in doubt confirm information by telephone or other means before you publish it. Capture, save and print a copy of a “screenshot” of the web page in question in order to defend us against charges of printing nonexistent information. If you do not know how to capture a screenshot, ask anyone with a technical bent to show you how.
- We have no greater protection if we pick up a hoax from a newspaper, a broadcaster or any other third party news organisation. The damage to our reputation from running a hoax is the same and in many jurisdictions we are just as liable under the law. Link
Using Online Sources
Here’s what the handbook says about Wikipedia:
Online information sources which rely on collaborative, voluntary and often anonymous contributions need to be handled with care. Wikipedia, the online "people’s encyclopedia", can be a good starting point for research, but it should not be used as an attributable source. Do not quote from it or copy from it. The information it contains has not been validated and can change from second to second as contributors add or remove material. Move on to official websites or other sources that are worthy of attribution. Do not link to Wikipedia or similar collaborative encyclopedia sites as a source of background information on any topic. More suitable sites can almost always be found, and indeed are often flagged at the bottom of Wikipedia entries. It is only acceptable to link to an entry on Wikipedia or similar sites when the entry or website itself is the subject of a news story. Link
All in all, the Handbook contains a wealth of information about errors and corrections. Most useful are the tips for avoiding reporting errors and the guide to not getting fooled by hoaxes. There are also two pieces of timeless advice:
…try to disprove as well as prove your story.
And:
Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong.
