Regret the Error

Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander continues to beaver away on the corrections beat. (See some of his previous work here.) Yesterday’s column looked at the paper’s less than effective process for enabling readers to report errors:

… Many readers have also complained that the Web site doesn’t offer an effortless way to report journalistic errors. They’re right. A small “corrections” link appears under the site’s “News” section. But it provides only an address for e-mailing correction requests (corrections@washpost.com), or encourages readers to phone The Post’s main number and “ask to be connected to the desk involved.” Many have told me the process is simply too cumbersome.

When readers somehow manage to get a message to The Post’s Universal Desk, which processes all print and Web content, editors are quick to correct obvious errors online. But requests submitted through the normal e-mail address can linger for days before a decision is made on whether a correction should appear in the paper, which would automatically trigger a correction online. In an era when inaccurate information can go viral, that delay is unacceptable.

Senior Editor Milton Coleman, who oversees corrections, acknowledged the problem and said a remedy is in the works to “streamline” the process so that “many, if not most, corrections will be made online before we make them in the newspaper.” The Post also should consider providing online readers with a more prominent link to report errors or technical glitches. Editors could be immediately alerted if every page on the site clearly displayed a link urging readers to “Report problems on this page.” Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees The Post’s online operations, said ideas such as these are being considered as part of a Web site redesign that is underway. He said a recent spike in reader complaints might be due partly to a “significant uptick” in online traffic. Replacing “aging technology” and redesigning the site “should help reduce the current dissonance,” he added.

I also dedicated a recent edition of my weekly Columbia Journalism Review column to the issue of corrections reporting.

Thanks, Daniel!

 Report an error