Regret the Error

In a recent column, Ted Vaden, public editor of the Raleigh News & Observer, calls errors “the low-grade virus of newspapers — always there, mostly benign, sometimes flaring up in maddening eruptions of inaccuracy.” Vaden offers space to a loyal reader who complains that the paper’s corrections don’t pass the “recycle bin” test, meaning “Don’t send him to his recycled papers to retrieve the original article so he can understand the correction.”

Unfortunately, many media outlets fail this test. Just have a look at these corrections. Too many corrections are vague, confusing, or downright frustrating. What was incorrect? How did it happen? What article are you talking about? Fortunately, Vaden brings word of changes at the News & Observer. (He also very kindly makes reference to my book.)

Linda Williams, N&O senior editor who oversees corrections, says relief is at hand. “There was a sort of format that discouraged people from restating the error,” she said. “We’re changing that whole idea and trying to write corrections that make it clear what was wrong and what is correct.”

Williams said the paper also is doing more staff training to prevent errors and encouraging readers to alert the paper to errors. There is an e-mail address — accuracy@newsobserver.com — to send notice of errors, and the paper has started a computer database of errors to better identify how they occur and can be prevented.

All encouraging steps.

Maybe it’s working. The N&O in 2007 printed 553 corrections, reversing a three-year upward trend that reached 680 in 2006. “I hope the reason we’re having fewer errors is that we’re doing a better job of prevention,” Williams said. But she’s also concerned about the impact of recent staff losses of copy editors and design editors, who are the last defense in catching mistakes.

“You can do a lot of training to prevent people from making errors,” she said. “But a lot of errors are caught because you’re reading a proof and it jumps out on the page when you see it. My concern is that we won’t have the time to do that last step when someone looks at it and catches it on the page.”

The paper did manage to reduce corrections despite having fewer people last year. Let’s hope that continues.

It good to see the paper is working on improving quality even in the face of staff losses. Many outlets are  dealing with shrunken newsrooms and it’s all too easy to let accuracy slide down the priority list. Just have a look at this recent example.