Regret the Error

The San Francisco Chronicle is facing a potential lawsuit after it made a major misidentification error in a high profile Sunday story.
As part of a series of articles on the local police department’s use of force policy, the paper ran a photo of a man it identified as SFPD Sgt. John Haggett, an officer that AP describes as “a 23-year veteran of the force who was suspended three times for using unnecessary force and has been the subject of dozens of citizen complaints.” So he’s not exactly the man you’d like to be mistaken for. The unlucky victim was Jack Neeley Jr., 42, a cab driver. At a news conference, Neeley said the error has made him feel unsafe.
“When I come out of the house, I kind of scan the area, making sure no one is looking out,” he told reporters. “It’s kind of changed the way I walk out of the house.”
AP reported Neeley “said he worries that people with a grudge against police officers will become violent with him as a result of an article about police violence in Sunday’s Chronicle.”
The Chronicle ran a correction yesterday. Actually, let’s rephrase that: The Chronicle ran a wholly unsatisfactory correction in light of the prominence of the initial error. Here it is:

The Chronicle made an error in the identification of a photograph in Sunday’s newspaper in connection with its series on the San Francisco Police Department’s use of force. The person in the photograph is not SFPD Sgt. John Haggett.
The Chronicle regrets the error. Link

Due to the severity of the mistake and the Chronicle’s lackluster response, Neeley is now considering a lawsuit. And here’s another consequence of the mistake: San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong is using the error as a way to question the paper’s reporting in the controversial series.
“If this photo is inaccurate, I have serious concerns about the analysis of all of the other data that they have obtained,” she said on Monday, calling the series “irresponsible.”
A Chronicle story about the Chief’s concerns is here. It quotes Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein saying, “The photo error, while serious, does not change the basic issues raised by the series about the department’s lack of a reliable system for tracking use of force and its failure to hold accountable officers who repeatedly resort to use of force.”
Editors at the paper have thus far been unable to explain how the mistake happened, though they said a front page correction will be published on Tuesday Wednesday. (We’ll post it here.)
UPDATE: The paper did run a front page correction on Wednesday, and it also had an article on A2 that quoted Neeley (the paper had put the AP story about the mistake on its website on Tuesday).
We spoke with Chronicle spokesperson Patricia Hoyt at around 11:30 EDT Wednesday and she said the paper is still “looking into” how the error happened. Interestingly, she said that the paper realized its error after Neeley contacted the paper on Sunday morning. So the paper did not spot its own mistake. This is of interest because the story was a major feature in the Sunday paper that carried three writing bylines and a researcher credit at the end. Yet not one of the three reporters, the researcher, or the handling editor(s) who worked on this piece spotted the photo mistake before or after it went to print? The story notes that “Hagett… did not respond to The Chronicle’s written and telephoned requests for comment…” Does this mean that they didn’t approach him face to face and therefore didn’t know what he looked like? Hopefully, the paper with be forthcoming about how the mistake happened.

This incident is a powerful example of the chain of events that one mistake can set off. It also highlights the importance of the response to an error. Let’s track the trouble this one error, and the inadequate response by the paper, has wrought:

1. The paper misidentifies a regular citizen as a police officer with a history of violence in a flagship story that was part of a major series of articles.
2. The paper is then unable to identify the mistaken man in its resulting, minor correction.
3. The misidentified man begins to fear for his personal safety and considers legal action due to the inadequate nature of the initial correction, and concerns for his life.
4. The error is then used as a way to question the reporting done by the paper in its series about the police’s use of force policy, potentially undermining the entire package of articles.
5. The paper has to run another, front page correction to make up for its initial, ineffective response.
6. This in turn will draw more attention to the mistake and give critics more ammunition to attack the paper and its series of articles.

If this seems like an isolated incident, we recommend reading this example from the Chicago Tribune, and this one from Fox News. If you can’t prevent an error, it’s essential that your response does not compound the situation. Major errors deserve a major response. Finally, here’s a pic of the SFPD Chief holding a copy of the mistaken photo: