Thanks for being a regular reader. You can check out the award-winning Regret the Error book here.
When I put this Washington Post correction on the site on December 4*, I had no idea it would end up being such a remarkable item:
A Nov. 26 article in the District edition of Local Living incorrectly said a Public Enemy song declared 9/11 a joke. The song refers to 911, the emergency phone number.
As I detailed in my Friday column for Columbia Journalism Review, the correction took on a life of its own. Notably, it inspired a Twitter hashtag, #washingtonpostcorrections. Now the Post’s ombudsman has revealed that a copy editor, not the article’s author, inserted the error. The writer is upset, as she feels she’s been subjected to ridicule. (For the record, my column noted that “a journalist” could have verified when the song was released. I made a vague reference of blame because I didn’t know who was at fault.)
It’s understandable that the writer is upset. But she should also feel frustrated that her paper’s correction policy helped expose her to ridicule.
From Andrew Alexander’s blog post:
The story in question was by Akeya Dickson, who writes about hip-hop for The Post. It referred to a song by Public Enemy titled “911 Is a Joke,” which criticizes emergency response units for taking too long to respond to 911 calls in black communities. But the story that appeared in The Post referred to “9/11,” leaving the clear impression that Public Enemy felt the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks were a joke …
In fact, it wasn’t Dickson’s fault. The story she submitted said “911.” But a copy editor, unfamiliar with the song, changed it to “9/11” and failed to check with Dickson about the change.
Before she knew it, Dickson was being skewered online …
Dickson was mortified. “You want to be able to defend yourself and you can’t,” she told me.
The error was made by veteran Post copy editor Maria Henriques. “As with any correction, I’m very sorry about it,” she said. Henriques said she was not familiar with Public Enemy or the song. She changed “911” to “9/11,” but failed to note it to Akeya as they went over other copy editing changes in her story.
Dickson’s immediate editor, Chanda Washington, said she submitted the correction without trying to specify the error was made on the copy desk. “I didn’t urge that we do that, because I knew it wasn’t our policy,” she said.
She’s right: the Post’s correction policy prevents the paper from noting the cause of error. (Unless an “outside source” is at fault, natch.) The New York Times will say, “Because of an editing error…” The Post declines to do so because it wants the organization as a whole to share the blame for any error. The version of the Post correction policy available on the Poynter website states:
We do not assign internal blame for a mistake, such as distinguishing between reporting and editing errors. Ours is a collective enterprise; we share responsibility for our successes, and for our errors. However, corrections that result from our receipt of incorrect information from outside sources can explain that fact to readers.
An admirable sentiment. Outdated, too. The public expect — and deserve — greater transparency from news organizations. Giving them basic information about how an error occurred — editing, reporting etc. — should be standard practice. It’s a small offering, but every piece of information helps.
Again, it’s understandable that Dickson is upset about being made fun of for an error that wasn’t her fault. On top of that, the paper declined to run her first-person article about the correction. So it twice denied her a chance to clear her name before Alexander finally weighed in with a blog post.
The Post correction policy available at Poynter states, “Accuracy is our goal, and candor is our defense.” The paper should offer up a little more candor in future corrections.
*Correction December 14, 2009: I originally and incorrectly wrote “February 4″ instead of December 4 in reference to when I posted the Washington Post correction. Thanks, Doug!
