Tag Archives: accuracy tips

Why the Washington Times accuracy memo is bad for corrections

May 19, 2009 – 1:23 pm

The Washington Times made an embarrassing mistake on its website last week. This picture pretty much speaks for itself:

washtimesobama

Yes, those are the Obama kids. No, they weren’t involved in the story.

After being spotted by one blog, the image quickly spread. Some people said it was an example of the Times’ right-wing bias. The Times spoke up, publishing a story to explain the error:

…Executive Editor John Solomon said The Times published the story in its print edition without a photo, then editors sent it to the Web platform without an attached photo.
He said The Times’ automated “news themes” engine, constructed to match related content to the Web site, paired the Associated Press photo of the Obama daughters to the bylined story. An online editor later spotted the photo and added a short caption.
“That editor should have removed the photo from the site but did not recognize the inappropriate mismatching,” Mr. Solomon said. “As soon as we learned about the problem, we detached the photo from the story. We regret that this technical glitch led to an inappropriate pairing of the photo with the story and we’ve taken steps technologically and in our editorial process to try to avoid such an episode in the future.”
“We also hope this glitch does not distract from the important and well reported subject of the story: the crisis of school violence in one of the nation’s largest cities.”

The lede of the above story blamed the error on a “technical glitch.” Well, that’s partly true. But this error also occurred because of a lack of editorial oversight. The photo was automatically matched with the story, but someone should have approved it before the article went live. So, yes, a technical glitch. But also a process problem. Solomon seems to acknowledge this when he says that “we’ve taken steps technologically and in our editorial process to try to avoid such an episode in the future.”

Solomon also reacted to the incident by sending a memo to staff. It ostensibly reinforces the importance of accuracy, but I worry that it could result in Times staffers doing more to conceal mistakes. Here’s a relevant passage:

1. Any reporter or editor who makes an error in a story that requires a published correction must submit a letter to the Executive Editor and Managing Editor explaining the mistake and what corrective actions were taken. These letters will be placed in your permanent personnel file.

This sends the message to the newsroom that it’s better to conceal an error than correct it. I know that’s not what Solomon meant to say, but his policy will encourage some staffers to do everything they can to hide a mistake. After all, leaving an error uncorrected means they won’t have to own up to it in an embarrassing letter — a letter that will go in their personnel file.

Solomon is right to want to track errors and understand their cause. But his process is all about punishment and shame; it’s not about learning from mistakes. These letters of confession go into a person’s personnel file. Sure, that provides information for their annual review. But what about the organization as a whole? This information should be collected in a corrections database that helps the newsroom track and understand the most common causes of error. Don’t shame your staff with a high school-esque process that’s all about letters and permanent records. It will only make people want to hide their errors. That’s bad for the newsroom and bad for readers.

The third item in Solomon’s memo addresses the issue of training. I like that the paper is introducing an accuracy training program. But he’s presented it like a remedial class for bad reporters and editors:

All reporters who have had stories with published corrections in the last year and any editors who inserted errors into copy will be required to take a mandatory class on accuracy and precision to be held the first week of June and led by Carleton Bryant.

Clearly, being put in that class is a form of punishment. Ideally, it would be a badge of honor. All staffers should receive accuracy training to help prevent mistakes. They should also be encouraged to own up to their mistakes and share any personal tips for attaining accuracy.

The Times needs to adjust its accuracy plan. Make it about working together to attain a higher standard, rather than singling out staff members for punishment. Make it about learning from mistakes, rather than embarrassing people. Make prevention and correction a part of the paper’s culture.

A culture of shame and blame just makes people scared to get things wrong. It doesn’t help solve the problem.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Newspapers, Online, Regret Articles | Also tagged , , , , | Comments

CJR columns: an argument in favor of checklists, a look at homegrown errorists

February 6, 2009 – 4:35 pm

cjr2After releasing my free Regret the Error Accuracy Checklist earlier this week (download your copy here), I devoted my latest CJR online column to the subject of checklists. This column offers background on why checklists have proven useful in so many different industries and professions. I examine why they work for journalists, and why we don’t use them. My column from the week before is a look at one man in Illinois who spends his mornings spotting errors in his local paper. Excerpts are below.

From today’s column (click on the headline for the full text):

Checklist Charlie

In 1935, Boeing Corporation almost went bankrupt after its Model 299 long-range bomber literally crashed and burned during a U.S. Army flight competition. Major Ployer P. Hill, the pilot, and one other crew member died in the crash. As a result, the Army contract went to a competing company, causing major financial difficulties for Boeing.
As a consolation, the Army ordered a few Model 299s for further testing. The question was how to fly them safely. The New Yorker’s Atul Gawande writes that the Army eventually “came up with an ingeniously simple approach: they created a pilot’s checklist, with step-by-step checks for takeoff, flight, landing, and taxiing.”
“With the checklist in hand, the pilots went on to fly the Model 299 a total of 1.8 million miles without one accident,” according to Gawande. The Army eventually ordered thousands of the aircraft, which became known as the B-17.
Gawande’s December 2007 story is a paean to the checklist, one of the simplest and most effective error-reduction tools. Checklists have been proven to work for pilots, doctors, nurses, and even people working at a nuclear power stations. For example, the use of a World Health Organization surgical safety checklist helped reduce inpatient deaths following operations by 40 percent, according to a studyNew England Journal of Medicine. published in the
Checklists also work for journalists. We just don’t use them …

From my January 30th column:

Homegrown Errorists

The package arrived two weeks ago, a bulging manila envelope with a return address in Decatur, Illinois. Inside was a mass of paper with a polite letter placed on top.
“Dear Mr. Silverman,” it began, “you have published a book on errors found in journalism and have a website devoted to the subject.” The writer, Robert S. Reed, continued on for two pages:

As a subscriber to the Herald & Review in Decatur Illinois, I have seen hundreds of errors in newspaper articles in addition to errors in the photo captions and the headlines/sub-headings. Most are misspelled words, missing words, extra words, wrong verb tenses, and, in some cases, factual inaccuracies.
Two of the articles from 2008 are attached to illustrate my point … I am also attaching 82 photo captions that appeared in the Decatur Herald & Review in 2008. All contain errors of one type or another. The corrections are indicated in ink. Also enclosed are 35 copies of headlines and sub-headings.

The more than 100 clippings were roughly an inch thick, and Reed was as good as his word. Each page correctly noted a copy editing or factual error from the paper. Red ink was everywhere, and in all the right places. The collection represented hours of work, not to mention the time spent photocopying them for delivery to me.
Some may wonder why anyone would choose to dedicate this amount of time to cataloging the errors in their local paper. But it’s no surprise to me at all. I’ve seen it before. (Plus, I’ve dedicated the last four years to reading hundreds of thousands of corrections and errors. I’m in no position to judge.) …

By Craig Silverman | Posted in CJR Column, Regret Articles, accuracy tips | Also tagged , | Comments

Recent CJR columns: The cause of errors, fake letters to the editor, to repeat or not to repeat

January 23, 2009 – 2:12 pm

cjr2I’m a bit behind in posting links to my weekly column for Columbia Journalism Review online. Here are pointers to three recent columns, with excerpts. My full column archive is online here.

Today’s column:

A Rare Peek at Why Errors Occur

Last Sunday’s New York Times was a treasure trove of accuracy-related information, and I don’t mean the paper’s corrections column.
Readers were treated to a pair of articles that offered an impressive amount of insight into mistakes. One was a rare look back at the causes of recent mistakes made by the Times; the other piece seemingly had nothing to do with the press, yet it was just as valuable to journalism.
In the first story of note, Clark Hoyt, the public editor, dedicated his column to walking back the cat on three Times errors.
“Last month,” he wrote, “because reporters and editors in three different parts of the paper did not take enough pains to verify information, The Times reported as fact a political telephone call that didn’t happen, fell victim to a faked letter to the editor, and published a sensational anecdote about a college football recruiting battle that the paper cannot be confident is true.”
Hoyt took the time to go to the editors and reporters involved in the mistakes and ask them how and why the errors occured. The reasons included failing to follow the paper’s existing verification policies (the fake letter) and poor communication (the phantom phone call). The “sensational anecdote” was published due to the combination of an uncooperative and unreliable source, an editor working on Christmas day, and a high school English essay that included a reference to women “romancing each other.”
To those who think accuracy is boring stuff, eat your hearts out …

Last week’s:

To Repeat or Not To Repeat?

To repeat or not to repeat?
It’s a simple question, yet it has vexed editors and correction writers for decades. Is it nobler to restate the error in a correction, or to offer a basic description of the mistake?
Derek Donovan, the reader’s editor of the Kansas City Star, adheres to a policy that proscribes restating the error in a correction. In a recent blog post, he offered a hypothetical scenario:
“For example, let’s say a story refers to Jamie Smith, but she really spells her name Jamie Smyth. The correction should not say: A story in the Nov. 26 Local section misspelled Jamie Smyth’s last name as Smith.
That’s a bad idea because it puts the mistake in the paper a second time. Better simply to write: A story in the Nov. 26 Local section misspelled Jamie Smyth’s last name.”
The goal of not stating the error is to prevent the paper from compounding the offense. It’s similar to the policy of not repeating a libelous statement …

The week before last:

Letter Imperfect

Though it takes up a relatively small amount of real estate, a newspaper or magazine’s letters to the editor section punches far above its weight when it comes to errors and corrections.
Just over the past couple of years, there have been plagiarized letters that made it into print, letters that included egregious factual errors and accusations, letters that were attributed to the wrong person, and letters that were significantly altered due to sloppy editing. Last month alone there were two notable letter errors …

By Craig Silverman | Posted in CJR Column | Also tagged , , , | Comments

Thinking about mistakes

January 22, 2009 – 8:00 am

The New York Times’ Career Couch feature recently offered advice for dealing with workplace mistakes. A lot of the insights can also be applied to journalistic errors. Here are some relevant excerpts:

One key to handling errors effectively is to recognize they aren’t necessarily a reflection of your native abilities and intelligence, [Carol Tavris, a social psychologist and co-author of “Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me)”] said. Once you have separated the action from you as a person, you can work quickly to correct the error and move on.

Because layoffs have shrunk the staffing of many businesses, “we need to recognize that we’re more vulnerable than usual to mistakes,” [Amy C. Edmondson, Novartis professor of leadership and management at the Harvard Business School] said. “We should be encouraging people to speak up sooner rather than later.”

The comment about layoffs will ring true to a lot of journalists.

Q. How do you start dealing with your mistake?

A. First, go to the people who are affected by it and apologize, Professor Edmondson said. Then work with them to correct the situation and come up with changes you can make so the error won’t happen again. The sooner you come clean, the better — both for your peace of mind and the good of the organization.

“Stand up, turn around, do it now,” she said.

Acknowledging a mistake is hard because of the fear of being perceived as stupid or incompetent, Dr. Tavris said, but keeping it inside can be an enormous psychological burden. “People are often surprised to learn that when they admit the mistake, not only do they feel better, but the response is often much better than they expected,” she said.

Another great section:

Q. Can your manager affect the way you deal with your mistake?

A. Your manager and company can make all the difference in the world in the way mistakes are handled. If your manager is the type who will become angry at you for a mistake, you will be less likely to disclose it — and that wastes valuable time, Professor Edmondson said.

The best companies make it a policy to show gratitude and reward employees for revealing their mistakes, Dr. Tavris said. Workers and managers need to view a mistake “as an inevitable human step on the path to improvement,” she said.

David D. Woods, a professor of human systems integration at Ohio State University, said managers need to make clear that “it’s more important to share the information than it is to identify the culprit.”

Occasionally, if a person makes many mistakes and cannot reduce them, a manager may realize that “this person is not well placed in this role,” Professor Edmondson said. “That’s not fun but it is a leadership job.” Still, she said, she has found that this situation is rare.

And here’s a good example of how the technologies we use can sometimes force us into mistakes (think spellcheckers):

Professor Woods gave an example of someone who inadvertently hits “Reply to all” in an e-mail message, sending confidential information to a large group. This could well reflect poor design of the e-mail system, with “Reply” and “Reply to all” placed too closely together, he said.

Finally, an endorsement of checklists:

Other examples of flaws, he said, are a breakdown in communication among departments, a fear among subordinates to question higher-ups and a failure to incorporate crosschecks — the way airline workers do for safety reasons — or checklists.

I’m working on a checklist-related project that I hope to unveil soon.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in accuracy tips | Comments

Corrections and accuracy wishes for the new year

December 23, 2008 – 2:01 pm

This is the final Regret post for 2008. Regular posting will resume on January 5, 2009.

I’m usually so busy tracking corrections and errors that I don’t get a chance to write about the best ways to prevent and correct mistakes. With 2008 coming to a close, it’s a perfect time to list some of the things news organizations should be doing with online corrections, and share some of my ideas for new prevention and correction practices.

I decided to write these suggestions in the form of “Wouldn’t it be great if…” because if any or all of them take flight this year, it would be a great thing for corrections and accuracy. Here are my accuracy and corrections wishes for the new year:

Wouldn’t it be great if every news website had a regularly-updated online corrections page linked from their homepage?

Wouldn’t it be great if all news sites placed corrections within the offending article?

Wouldn’t it be great if news sites stopped scrubbing away errors?

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a way to automatically notify a website that a correction was made to an article they’ve linked to? I’ve taken to calling this the “Reverse Trackback” or a “Correctforward.” A Trackback is a way of automatically notifying a site that its content (usually a blog post) has been linked by someone else. We need to reverse this and create a system that spiders out a correction notice to news sites or blogs that previously cited the original, incorrect article. The notification could, for example, take the form of a comment on the related post. (”This is an automated message to inform you that the Regret the Error post you linked to has been corrected. Please read the corrected post here [link].”) This would go a long way to helping push corrections out to the public, which is what needs to be done on the web. We shouldn’t expect people to go hunting for corrections.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a “Notify Me If This Article Is Corrected” button alongside all of the “Print” and “Share” buttons that appear on most online articles? The reader could simply enter their email address and receive an email if a correction was issued for the story. It’s great that more and more news sites are placing corrections within the story, but how many people go back and reread an article? A lot of readers are not seeing the corrections. As I noted above, we need to find a way to push corrections out to readers. This tool would enable readers to receive corrections for articles that they consider particularly important or useful.

Wouldn’t it be great if all news sites had an online form like the Chicago Tribune’s to help people report errors?

Wouldn’t it be great if readers could receive credit for spotting errors? For example, if a site asks people to create a user account, then that person’s profile could list “Number of corrections submitted” and “Number of corrections accepted.” It could also include “Letters to the editor published,” and a listing of that person’s comments on the site. Maybe the best error-spotter earns a prize at the end of the month or year? This system would encourage people to participate and contribute — and it would help decrease the number of uncorrected errors, which are a big problem.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could create standardized accuracy checklists for reporters, editors and other newsroom staff? These checklists (examples: 1,2,3) would help people take a systematic approach to verifying articles before they’re published. To see how checklists are helping improve intensive care in hospitals, read this great New Yorker article.

Wouldn’t it be great if we had a central place where people from different newsrooms could share tips for achieving accuracy? There’s a lot of knowledge out there, but it’s scattered among different organizations. A wiki for accuracy tips would help share knowledge and go a long way towards creating best practices.

What else would be great to see happen this year? Add your thoughts in the comments.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Regret Articles | Also tagged , | Comments

No such thing as a “Medal of Honor winner”

May 8, 2008 – 8:00 am

David Sullivan, who writes the That’s the Press, Baby blog, recently offered some good advice for copy editors:

We ran a story last week on a winner of the Medal of Honor. Like every good copy editor, I have been told for decades that it is a factual error to call it the Congressional Medal of Honor, even though nearly everyone in America calls it that. As the Wikipedia entry notes, “the Medal of Honor is presented by the president on behalf of the Congress. Although commonplace, the term ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ is not correct.’”

So I was making sure that we didn’t ever say “Congressional Medal of Honor” and in doing so fell afoul of the other phrasing that often accompanies it, one that also veterans are always quick to point out and which I also knew, but was not looking for and thus overlooked. We referred to the soldier as a “Medal of Honor winner.” Medal of Honor etiquette calls for the verb to be “awarded” or “given” or such, not “won,” as opposed to service medals. So we got some calls about that.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes | Comments