David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer-winning reporter for the New York Times, fired off an interesting letter to Romenesko yesterday after he read a column about corrections written by the ombudsman of the Raleigh News & Observer.
In the column, the News & Observer’s Ted Vaden noted the number of corrections run by his paper last year, compared the tally with papers of similar size, and answered a few common questions that readers have about corrections. He also made a suggestion that the paper disclose more information in its corrections and say it’s sorry more often. All standard fare in a correction tally column (see examples here here and here.) Here’s how Vaden’s column began:
Journalists hate to be wrong. Even more, we hate to admit we’re wrong.
That’s why it’s so painful for newspapers to issue corrections to the
inevitable errors that occur when you publish the equivalent of a small
book each day, then another the next day.
Mistakes damage not only the stories in which they occur. They undermine reader confidence in the work of the paper.
More about his opening salvo later.
Johnston takes issue with the idea that counting the number of corrections is an accurate measure of the true number of errors or the factual quality of the paper’s reporting. He also criticized the fact that Vaden’s tally didn’t separate out the kinds of errors (how many were spelling errors, numerical errors, misquotes etc.). This breakdown should be standard practice for a correction tally report, and many papers do provide it. It’s a good suggestion for Vaden to heed for next year.
Johnston’s point about the drawbacks of simply counting corrections is well taken. There are many errors that go unnoticed and therefore uncorrected, and some errors are the result of incorrect information provided by a third party, such as the police. Also, as Johnston notes, not every error is equal. Some are of course worse than others, though we often say there’s no such thing as an acceptable error. From Johnston’s letter:
…Analysis is required to understand the nature of the problem. What
share of corrections were spelling errors? Math errors? Editing errors?
Typos? Erroneous official reports that were accurately cited? How many
were about messed up facts, or stereotypes, that created a false
impression? What is the ratio of complaints made to corrections run?
As we noted above, many newspapers will break down the type of errors/correction in this type of report, and the News & Observer should move to this method for future reports.
Perhaps most important, what portion of complaints are determined to be malicious?
We
rarely tell readers, listeners and viewers about complaints from those
who those who twist, distort and lie to shut down hard-hitting
reporting.
At many news organizations, just complaining can
produce benefits, especially if it results in clear facts being muddied
with extraneous details. Ombudsmen could do a lot of good by describing
such dishonest complaints so readers get a fully balanced view of
journalism.
This is a valid point. Newsrooms receive a constant stream of complaints from people and organizations who seek to further their point of view/company/cause. There are also so-called "fact checking" organizations who are closely linked with one side of an issue. They use their resources to pressure news organizations into presenting their point of view (and only their point of view), and they frequently mobilize their membership to write letters to the editor or call for a correction. The public likely isn’t aware of the constant onslaught of criticism and continuous calls for correction. This is an issue that takes up a lot of ombudsman hours and it would be interesting to see it tackled and — better yet — quantified for readers.
…The ease or difficulty of making a complaint is another factor. Just as
the police can make it appear crime is down by creating obstacles
(e.g., requiring one to come to a police station rather than sending a
car to the scene), editors can restrict the volume of complaints by how
they require them to be handled.
This too is valid. We often hear from readers who feel their request for correction has been ignored or unacceptably delayed. Many newspapers now have a centralized process for receiving and considering corrections, but things still fall through the cracks. We can and must do better.
…The correction process is also biased against tough reporting.
Hardly
anyone complains about errors that make them look good. All sorts of
errors can be found in stories with heroic themes (rescues, crimes
solved, etc.) and in stories about politicians, actors and athletes
without any complaints.
Lack of corrections should never be
taken as an indication that a journalist does quality work. One can
write pap and never get a complaint even though the work is riddled
with errors of fact, omission and distortion.
A lack of corrections is not the whole ball game, but a reporter whose work consistently requires corrections should not be ignored. Offer them training, make them to recheck their work before sending it on to an editor. If the problem persists, tell them to consider another line of work. Reporters doing investigative or hard-hitting work will naturally elicit more complaints and scrutiny. But corrections are for factual errors; they aren’t biased, even though the person requesting one may be. Though a "tough" article may motivate someone to call for a correction more than a puff piece, they will only have a case if an error was made. So prevention remains the best defense of all — regardless of the kind of journalism being practiced.
…Perhaps we should think about corrections as a measure of integrity –
and running many may signify commitment to fact, openness to complaints
and high reader expectations.
The key here is "may." In some cases, that may very well be the reality. But a flood of corrections for entirely preventable errors is no badge of honor. But we do agree that news organizations that create a solid mechanism for preventing and correcting errors should be celebrated. The worst kind of published error is one that goes uncorrected.
…There are reporters who spot mistakes in their own work that no one
complained about, and submit corrections, a point no reader would
imagine based on Mr. Vaden’s unqualified assertions at the top of his
column. What does it say about our craft that this is the just the kind
of stereotypical false impression that is likely to stand uncorrected?
Johnston is taking issue with Vaden’s statement that, "we hate to admit we’re wrong.
That’s why it’s so painful for newspapers to issue corrections…" We’d agree that this reinforces many of the criticisms levelled against the media when it comes to errors. So is Vaden confirming the suspicions, or unfairly characterizing the attitude of his fellow journalists? We’d be interested to know if he wrote this as a result of his interaction with people at the News & Observer.
Ah, but here’s the good news: An award-winning reporter at one of journalism’s most prestigious media outlets took the time to ponder and write about corrections. (Sorry, it just doesn’t happen that often.) Johnston’s thoughtful letter raises many good issues and has stirred the discussion. Only good things can come from this questioning. We just hope the discussion continues at all levels inside the newsroom. That’s how things will begin to change.
