An article about the investigation into the abduction and death of Milly Dowler (News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone during police hunt, 5 July, page 1) stated that voicemail “messages were deleted by [NoW] journalists in the first few days after Milly’s disappearance in order to free up space for more messages. As a result friends and relatives of Milly concluded wrongly that she might still be alive.” Since this story was published new evidence – as reported in the Guardian of 10 December – has led the Metropolitan police to believe that this was unlikely to have been correct and that while the News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone the newspaper is unlikely to have been responsible for the deletion of a set of voicemails from the phone that caused her parents to have false hopes that she was alive, according to a Metropolitan police statement made to the Leveson inquiry on 12 December.

Even with the correction appended, one of the subheads on the story still reads, “Deleted voicemails gave family false hope”. That seems to implicate the NoW. The Guardian has been criticized for this routine correction to a major allegation. Storyful has a look at some reaction from former NoW journalists.

Writing in the Independent, Stephen Glover offered this assessment:

Some people might think The Guardian owes us a more comprehensive apology than a brief posting at the top of an online article published five months ago. But the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, does not like apologising since to do so would suggest that, even though he inhabits the upper reaches of Mount Olympus, he is made of flesh and blood like the rest of us. He did carry a story in Saturday’s paper under the headline “Police logs raise questions over the deletion of Dowler voicemails”, but it did not contain the blunt admission of error conveyed by the posting, far less an apology. Ironically, it was co-written by Nick Davies, one of the co-authors of the 4 July article.

Thanks, Norman!

In fact, his body wasn’t found until a couple of days later. The Mail story said Mulrooney had been found in the River Lee. In reality, he was found in a yard belonging to a business. The paper also hinted at suicide, but that doesn’t appear to have been a factor.

What an outrageous, unconscionable mess.

As as result of the false report, the president of the school’s student union sent a letter to the paper demanding an apology. And the Student council banned sales of the paper on campus. Now that an apology has been published, the ban will be revisited when the council meets int he new year. A report from IrishCentral.com:

The motion to ban ‘the Mail’ was passed after students promised to seek some measure of reprisal for the tabloid having deliberately invented the story in a callous and calculated bid to merely sell more copies.
An apology was printed in the newspaper yesterday, and a marketing manager for the paper’s parent company said that the editor had personally travelled to Cork to meet with members of Caolan’s family to express his sorrow at the pieces publication.

Here’s the apology, via the University Times:

A newspaper story dutifully crossing its “T’s” and dotting its “I’s” can be a powerful tool in a community, a force for tremendous good. When it gets key facts wrong, however, it can inflict tremendous harm.
In the case of one Tuesday story (“Sexual harassment case filed against Dad’s Bar-B-Que”), The Anniston Star got a major fact wrong. It incorrectly reported that the owner of Dad’s Bar-B-Que also owns the Top o’ the River restaurant. That is wrong. The owner of Anniston’s Top o’ the River is in no way affiliated with the restaurant that is currently the subject of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit.
The Star regrets the error and apologizes to Top o’ the River, its ownership and employees for this mistake.
The Star misinterpreted a state database of business ownership. The fault lies not with the database but with us. Once alerted to the error Tuesday morning, The Star amended its online version and began a twofold process: (a.) of digging into how this mistake occurred and (b.) of taking steps to ensure it is not repeated.
Errors of this magnitude happen occasionally at The Star, just as they do at most other newspapers. That does nothing to lessen the pain, regret and unpleasantness that accompany them; the mood in the newsroom Tuesday was decidedly downcast.
The newspaper is fully dedicated to delivering the news important to its community in a fair, honest and accurate manner. One such vital method is to report our errors and make corrections. Another way is to learn from our mistakes. Rest assured, we remain committed to earning the public’s trust daily.

I became aware of it thanks to this rather vague correction in the Guardian:

A Weekend magazine article about a woman who for part of her working life dresses as Charlotte Bronte contained factual inaccuracies. This article, with its related comments, has been removed from our website (Being Charlotte Bronte, 3 December, page 12).

Why would the paper remove the entire story? It’s rare to see the Guardian take this course of action. With a bit of digging, it became clear that the story was removed because the premise was false. The woman, Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, does not dress like Charlotte Bronte in the way portrayed in the story.

As a result of the incorrect reports, she has spent a lot of time fighting back against a series of press reports that presented her as someone who always dresses in period costume, is living in a “time warp”, and may also occasionally confuse herself with Ms. Bronte. (The Daily Mail ran a picture of Cunliffe in costume at McDonald’s. Lord know why she agreed to do that…)

Let’s sample some of the articles that are still online (the Daily Telegraph removed its piece).

From the Daily Express:

SHE is a 21st-century housewife with a husband and two grown-up children.
But Lyn-Marie Cunliffe spends every day dressed as her heroine – Victorian author Charlotte Bronte.
She doesn’t wear modern attire even when grabbing a bite in McDonald’s.
The 49-year-old harboured a lifelong obsession with the Jane Eyre author’s works before deciding three years ago she wanted to live in a time-warp.

The Daily Mail:

Many of us dream of wearing the beautiful costumes from period dramas like Downton Abbey… however few would go quite as far as donning them every day.
But romantic fiction-lover, Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, has taken her obsession with Victorian literature to the extreme – by living her modern life dressed as her heroine Charlotte Bronte.
The 49-year-old loves the 19th century author so much that she dresses like her all the time – even on trips to the supermarket.

And from the now-scrubbed Telegraph piece:

Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, 49, loves 19th century author Charlotte Bronte so much she dresses as the famous author all the time – even while doing her supermarket shopping. The mum-of-two dresses in the home-made smocks whilst doing the school run …

The story originated with the Caters News Agency, which seems to specialize in quirky and sensationalized accounts of real people. Here’s the lead of one of its recent stories:

A pretty student has made a mind-blowing recovery – after her head EXPLODED.Stunning Jade Lucas, 20, almost died when a huge cyst in her brain filled with fluid – and exploded when surgeons drilled open her skull to operate.

You can also have lots of fun scanning the headlines. A sample:

WOMAN WAS SCARED OF STAIRS
PREGNANT ROADKILL CRAVINGS
NAP TIME COULD KILL MY BABY
LETTUCE ADDICTION DIAGNOSIS

Lettuce addiction!

So perhaps Cunliffe should have done a little due diligence before agreeing to the interview. That said, she claims she was misled. This is from a subsequent report that detailed her outrage at the original story and those that followed:

She said she had been told the article would be about tourism and her business Abigails Ateliers. She said she had approved a different version of the story and had broken down in tears when she had read what was eventually printed.
“I have spent three years building up my business and now I am afraid it is ruined,” she said. “I spent a lot of time building up my online presence and now when you put my name in to a search engine there is a story about a crazy lady who thinks she is Charlotte Bronte.”

It’s pretty low if the agency promised approval on the story and then switched it out. Of course, it’s strange to offer approval in the first place…

Cunliffe has been blogging about her ordeal (see here, here and here, for example). She also spent a lot of time over the past week contacting newspapers and other outlets to get them to correct their errors. Some have been responsive, many have not. This has only added to her frustration.

Cunliffe eventually heard back from the journalist at Caters, who said it was the papers who took the tale to the extreme. Here’s what Cunliffe wrote:

Not only have Telegraph and Guardian both clearly stated it to be untrue but Caters the original source of the story has distanced itself from the two remaining stories.An email from Tammy Hughes of Caters who was the person who interviewed me has made clear that “any mistakes are the result of the newspapers themselves

So perhaps the agency distributed the version she had approved. It’s not exactly clear at what point the story morphed into “This wacky grandma dresses like Charlotte Bronte all the time. Watch her eat a hamburger in period costume!”

I’m sure the folks at Caters could come up with a much better line than that. In fact, you probably won’t be surprised to learn some of the offending papers got very punny with their headlines. The Mail: “Do you come Eyre often?” The Express: “The Full Bronte!”

Advice for Responding to Inaccurate Reports

One valuable thing to come out of this is a blog post from Cunliffe that offers good advice to anyone who feels they have been wronged by a press account. She starts by encouraging people to “take a deep breath ,move away from any telephones ,mobile phones and keyboards,do not send any letters .”

Also take time to “vent ,cry ,shout break some crockery if needs be ,give yourself half and hour ,or one hour if your going to phone friends.You have every right to be upset,Be honest with yourself however about any mistakes you have made and consider them and how to avoid them in future.”

Once that venting and analysis is over, Cunliffe said it’s time to get down to the business of requesting corrections:

Now get to a keyboard,contact the newspapers politely and point out their “mistakes” at this point assume that you are dealing with honest people who have made a mistake do not be accusatory.

Read minutely the article in question ,check it for any and every mistake,this may be very hurtful and upsetting but the more discrepancies you can point out when refuting the sptry the more likely you are to be listened to

Next point out the same mistakes to anyone or any site who has posted links to an online article.

Next put out your side of the story be concise ,Social network sites and twitter are your allies here ,they provide a forum for any one however unknown to air their point of view.

Cunliffe recommends reading comments on the relevant articles (“but dont be obsessive”) and “only answer those making wrong assumptions and ensure that each page of comments contains a comment on your side of the story ,be polite and if your comments are removed email the site to pint out that they are supposed to allow anyone who has a story written about them scope to reply,this doesn’t always work but may .”

Valuable advice. Shame about the way she gained this expertise…

WBTV (Channel 3) apologized Saturday to the Rev. Billy Graham after the station erroneously reported the evangelist’s death.

Around 6:30 a.m. Saturday, a producer and director in the control room saw what they thought was a bulletin on the CBS network feed to its affiliates announcing Graham’s death, said Dennis Milligan, WBTV’s news director. Kristen Miranda, anchoring the newscast, was told by the show’s producer through her earpiece to announce the news, which she did.

Afterward, WBTV called Mission Hospital in Asheville, where Graham, 93, is recovering from pneumonia, and learned he was not dead.

Within 10 minutes of the original report, WBTV made an on-air correction. Milligan said the station planned to repeat the correction and apology on Saturday’s late newscast and early news today.

He said he was unable to find out Saturday what had been on the CBS network feed, but he said it could have been some kind of test or other content sent during downtime while the network was not providing programming.

Congrats to the station for doing a good job dealing with this mistake. To recap: they issued multiple on air corrections (three by my count), posted an apology on the station’s website, and placed an apology on their Facebook page. That’s a good job of making sure viewers know about the mistake, and the resulting apology.

Here’s the apology on the station’s website:

On Saturday during its early morning newscast, WBTV News mistakenly reported the passing of the Rev. Billy Graham. Our show producer read what he thought was a breaking news crawl about Rev. Graham on an off- air network feed.
He made the decision to air the information without checking it first. That was a mistake.
Within minutes, other staff members contacted the hospital where Rev. Graham is being treated, to find out that he is doing well in his recovery from pneumonia.
We made an on-air correction immediately.
Accuracy is the most important ingredient of any newscast. We at WBTV strive every day to make sure that the news we deliver is accurate, fair and useful to our viewers.
Today we made an unfortunate mistake.
We apologize to Rev. Graham, his family, the staff of Mission Hospital in Asheville where he is being treated and most of all our viewers.
We will be reviewing exactly what happened and we will take steps to make sure that it does not happen again.
– Dennis Milligan, News Director, WBTV

Just to reinforce why it’s good practice to repeat an on air apology, have a look at this comment posted on the station’s Facebook wall:

thank you for the public apologgy tonight at 11:30pm. everyone makes mistakes and I understand you’ll try to be the first for breaking news! it takes a lot of guts to do a formal public apology…. you’ll still are the best! thank you everyone for all you’ll do!

The commenter’s profile says he owns a lawn care company, so he appears unconnected to the station in any professional capacity.

Thanks, Randy!

John Pittman, executive editor Link

Here’s the offending story, via Jim Romenesko’s new and interesting website:

This offers an opportunity for me to explain how we handled the situation. I’m not saying we did it perfectly. I’d be eager to hear comments from readers about anything we may have overlooked or handled poorly.

As a starting point, here’s the text of the apology that was published:

Around 2:45 p.m. today, we published a story about Jericho Upshaw, a Halifax man charged with first-degree murder, and his association with the North End.

It relied on two sources who said they had encountered him in the neighbourhood on several occasions. Unfortunately, the story was wrong: we had the wrong Jericho. The details in the story were about another young man with the same first name. Our two sources had seen Upshaw’s photo in a local paper and identified him as the man they had encountered in the North End. They were mistaken, and we were wrong in publishing the story.

Within about five minutes of posting the story online and sending out a tweet about it, we realized we had the wrong Jericho. We removed the story from our site and deleted the related tweet.

Our practice is to not unpublish content. We don’t want to erase the record; we prefer to correct it.

But in this case, the story was based on a mistaken identification by two sources. It was built on the information from those two sources. As a result, we felt it was essential to remove the story and publish this explanation of what went wrong. We also redirected the URL from the mistaken story to this blog post in order to ensure that anyone who finds that piece of content will understand why it was removed.

On behalf of OpenFile Halifax, I apologize for this error and will do everything I can to make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.

Neal Ozano
Editor, OpenFile Halifax

This is the kind of situation we journalists dread.

“My heart sank,” said OpenFile editor in chief Kathy Vey in an email to me today. “Neal had asked me to look over the story for legal issues, because it was a murder case. There weren’t any but we had a much more basic problem. We named the wrong guy.”

The story was based on totally incorrect information. It shouldn’t have been published. So what do you do now that you know that? I hate unpublishing content; it should only be done in very specific circumstances. In my view, this was one of them.

The story itself was completely incorrect. Once we knew we had the wrong person, there was nothing left in the piece that offered value to readers. So it had to come down — and we had to replace it with something as soon as possible.

I worked with Halifax editor Neal Ozano and editor in chief Kathy Vey to draft the apology. We also contacted our tech team to alert them that we would need to redirect the URL of the unpublished story to the new blog post. That way, anyone who found their way to the offending story would be given an explanation of what what happened, of why the story was gone. Sending people to an error page is not acceptable. You have to make it easy for them to understand what happened.

The apology itself also needed to be clear about what the mistake was, how it occurred and what action we took once we realized our error. Again: help people understand what went wrong. Be clear. We also had to be honest about the fact that it was a failure on our part. You can’t just blame your sources. It was published on our site. We needed to accept responsibility and offer a clear apology.

A final consideration was the fact that our OpenFile Halifax Twitter account tweeted a link to the story. So as soon as the post was live and URL redirect was working, we tweeted the link to the apology from the same local Twitter account. That was then retweeted by me, Kathy Vey and by our national OpenFile Twitter account. Our Toronto news curator also retweeted it of his own accord. We wanted to make sure Twitter followers had a chance to see the apology.

As of today, the apology is still on the homepage of our Halifax site. (It will probably scroll off by the end of day.)

Now the job is to make sure this doesn’t happen again. We cover local news in our cities, but we don’t do a lot of crime reporting. So the story was a bit out of our comfort zone and area of expertise. We will be extra cautious with any stories of this nature in the future. We’ll also ask ourselves whether what we have is really news. We will add extra eyes to contentious stories.

What else should we do? What could we have done better? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

The wording in the above gives the impression of a hesitant apology. Why not lead with the apology in your words and then offer details about the Press Ombudsman decision?

Heat magazine also apologized for the same accusation, according to the Guardian.

He’d been chasing down a story about a local puppy mill and came upon information that a number of huskies had been sent to a New York address. He called it up and found it was a meat market. He also spoke to a staffer who told him they sell dog meat.

Cue the investigative report:

The I-TEAM went undercover in New York City to see the Canine Culture Center, but found a meat market at the same address.
And as the I-TEAM found, a worker there says he only sells dogs to eat.

That was how it was written up on the station’s website. Problem? Schugel heard “dog” when he was actually being told “duck.”

After inspectors checked the market and found no dogs, the truth began to come out. The embarrassing error was soon being covered by the New York Post, the local Onion’s A.V. Club and by Minnesota’s City Pages. The latter reported the station scrubbed the report off its website and didn’t offer a correction (see my update below that notes the text report is online but the video was indeed scrubbed):

Oops.
Now, WCCO has completely scrubbed the story. What story? That dog thing? Oh, yeah. Uhm, early April Fool’s?
Since the news of WCCO’s colossal mistake broke in the New York Post, the CBS affiliate has disappeared any remnants of the story from its website. Neither the story or a follow-up post still exist, and the video story has also vanished without a trace.

Update Nov. 11, 20012011* 5:00 p.m.: Richard Prince filed a bug at MediaBugs to note that the station scrubbed the video report but that you can still find the text here. Prince also has more details in his report here:

WCCO has taken down the video of its story from its website — but kept the text posted, backdated with a 2008 timestamp — and has steadfastly said it has no comment.

Did the station backdate the story to try and hide it? I guess we won’t know for sure since they refuse to answer questions. Prince’s report also includes a statement from the the Minnesota Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. An excerpt:

WCCO cannot undo the harm inflicted by airing the story. However, the editors and managers of the station can improve their own credibility and the esteem of all professional journalists by being upfront and transparent from here on out. If a newsroom publishes an incorrect story, it is imperative to acknowledge the mistake and issue a correction and an apology to those the story harmed. Not doing so makes it harder for all journalists working to win the respect of the public they serve.

*Thanks to commenter Randy for spotting this typo.