Tag Archives: correction database

Regret the Interview: A corrections Q&A with Toronto Star Public Editor Kathy English

May 1, 2008 – 8:00 am

Thanks for being a regular reader. You can check out the award-winning Regret the Error book here.

In November of last year, I was invited to the Toronto Star by Kathy English, the paper’s public editor, to give a presentation to newsroom staff. The Star is Canada’s highest circulation daily, and one of very few* media outlets in the country with a full-time public editor/ombudsman.

Prior to my presentation, we sat down for an interview during which English told me that the paper was embarking on several accuracy-related projects. One was to build a corrections database to track the paper’s errors; another was to update the paper’s corrections style.

English was nice enough to write a column about my presentation and book. Now it’s my turn to interview her. We spoke via email about the Star’s new corrections style, how the paper encourages readers to report errors, and whether the phrase “regret the error” is a useful addition to a correction.

*Editor’s Note: An unfinished version of this post was mistakenly published on Wednesday morning. As a result, the sentence “The Star is Canada’s highest circulation daily, and one of very few media outlets in the country that has a full-time public editor/ombudsman” left out the word “few.” Thanks to David and Steve for spotting that mistake. Update: I’ve also fixed a few typos that didn’t cause any factual errors, including a misspelling of the word “interview” in the headline (forgot the “r”). Thanks to Eric and Aldous. On with the Q&A…

Who decided that the paper’s corrections style needed to be updated?
When I took on the role of public editor at the Star last May, I initiated a review of the paper’s corrections policy and practices. This was approved by my boss, publisher, Jagoda Pike, with the full co-operation of editor-in-chief Fred Kuntz. That’s not to suggest that the paper did not have vigorous corrections policies and practices in place. My predecessor, Sharon Burnside, did an excellent job of keeping the Star accountable to its readers through corrections and the Star has long had an accuracy and corrections policy.

I came to the Star from the Globe and Mail where I had served on an “integrity committee” that had looked at the paper’s corrections policies and I had put a lot of work into researching best practices in newspaper corrections. It seemed appropriate to bring what I had learned to my new challenge at the Star.

As well, the goal of the public editor bringing more accountability to the Star’s corrections process through a tracking system that would help the newsroom learn from published errors was very clearly part of the mandate I took on with this role. I am happy to say I report to a publisher who has strong views on this newspaper’s responsibility for accuracy and the need for accountability for accuracy. I could hardly launch a system for tracking errors without fully understanding and reviewing the Star’s Accuracy and Corrections policy.

What caused the change?
We haven’t significantly changed the way corrections are written, beyond deciding not to print “the Star regrets the error” in all corrections and trying to be consistent about what should be included in corrections.

The most significant change is the presentation. Corrections are now published under a “Corrections” label, rather than with individual headlines. Our policy calls for all news corrections to run in a prominent position on Page A2 (or 3) and corrections for Sports, Business, Living and Entertainment to run in the same location in those sections. This is not a change from longstanding practice at the Star.

When you sat down to think about the new style, what were the main things you wanted to achieve?
The most important goal of our corrections is to serve the reader — and the record — by stating the correct information so that readers clearly know what is accurate. Corrections should be clear, concise and direct and indicate to readers what we got wrong. Our style aims to first state the correct fact and then to provide the broad context of what was wrong without necessarily repeating the error. We don’t follow the correct information with the general statement of “incorrect information was published” because we think we should inform readers about what went wrong. They should not have to guess at what we are correcting.

Corrections must also include the calendar date the original article was published (not the day of the week because that becomes meaningless online) and the brief context of that article.

As well, corrections had traditionally referred to an error in a “story” and I changed that to “article”. I think article is a better word for newspaper readers because “story” could create (unconscious) connotations of fiction. To me, article more clearly denotes fact, which is what we provide to readers.

We also had much debate about whether to ascribe blame in published corrections by denoting whether the mistake was “due to an editing error.” (Or, “due to a reporting error.”) The policy here has long been that publishing the Star is a team endeavor and we do not publicly ascribe blame for errors. We have not changed that. However, our new Accuracy Tracker system will help us to learn much more internally about the cause of errors.

What was the process for creating the new style?
The review of the Star’s accuracy and corrections policy was part of an overall Star “Credibility Committee” that is currently revising and updating the Star’s Policy and Ethics manual to ascertain that newsroom policies reflect the realities of 21st century/multimedia journalism. I headed the accuracy and corrections committee of nine editors and reporters. This committee looked at all aspects of the Star’s corrections policy and practices, in the light of what is considered best practice in North American newsrooms. We looked at online corrections, what we correct and the wording and placement of corrections. I then drafted an updated policy, which was approved by the Credibility Committee (co-chaired by me and the editor-in-chief). It will be published in a new manual in coming months.

This process took place over several months and throughout, I tried to provide information to the newsroom about best practices in corrections by posting a number of research articles on the newsroom intranet. Inviting you to the Star to speak about accuracy and corrections was also part of my initiative to try to spark more discussion about this important topic.

Some of the new corrections repeat the incorrect information (“A recipe for Bourbon Apple Cake misstated the amount of butter that should be used in Step 2. It is one and a half sticks, not cups…”) while others don’t (“The potential savings from driving a highly fuel efficient hybrid car (after 96,000 kms and if fuel reached European-like gas prices of $2 a litre) would be approximately $900. An incorrect savings estimate was published…”). How do you choose when to include the incorrect information?
You are right. While our goal is consistency and my preferred corrections style is to state the correct information first, sometimes that simply does not best serve the reader and it makes more sense to start out by stating what was wrong (the New York Times style) and then provide the correct information. We do this sparingly and only after determining that our standard style doesn’t work best. I do believe that stating the correct information is the most important goal of a correction and it should be the “lead”, but I reserve the right to alter that if it doesn’t clearly communicate to readers. Consistency is important but sometimes the “formula” doesn’t work.

It appears as though the new corrections have ditched the phrase “The Star regret the error.” Why was that no longer needed?
Our committee gave serious consideration to dropping this sentence that has long been included at the end of all corrections in the Star. I like the polite civility of it, but there was general agreement that this phrase has come to sound somewhat satirical (please don’t take this wrong, but I wonder if that is a result of your website making the phrase “Regret the Error” sound somewhat insincere when it appears in print in the daily newspaper.) I also looked at the style of other newspapers and “Regret the Error” is not generally used these days.

I don’t think that sentence was particularly meaningful or significant to readers. I also think it’s a given that the Star regrets all of our errors; the fact that we are addressing them in a published correction is evident of that and so too is our move to track errors to try to learn from, and minimize them. That’s not to say there won’t be occasions when we do explicitly express our regret.

Have you received any reader feedback about the new corrections style?
None whatsoever.

Do more readers read the printed corrections than those published online, or vice versa?
I expect more readers read the corrections published in the newspaper.

What kind of traffic does your online corrections page get?
I spoke to our web editor and she tells me the traffic to that page is almost nil.

Apart from the writing of the corrections, have any other things changed, such as placement etc.?
The most significant change for the reader is that we no longer run headlines with corrections. The headlines took up a lot of space and essentially could not say much but repeat the content of the correction. I looked at corrections in numerous other papers and saw that most run corrections under a “Corrections” label, without individual headlines and it made sense to do the same here.

We’ve also started publishing information on the Page 2 Index to indicate the Star’s commitment to accuracy and tell readers how to report a possible error. This is in addition to the online initiatives to guide readers to how to report possible errors.

The most significant change for Star journalists is that we now monitor corrections in the Toronto Star Accuracy Tracker, an online form that helps the Star track and monitor corrections and reasons for errors. The purpose is to help the newspaper learn from mistakes so that we can continually strive for higher levels of editorial excellence. It requires that department heads, in consultation with staff, provide the required information about the reason and origin of errors to the public editor’s office following publication of a correction. Here’s a link to the public editor column I wrote about this.

There is a little link next to every online story that allows people to “Report typo or correction.” How long has this been in place, and where do those emails go? How often do readers use it?
I believe this was put in place by my predecessor, Sharon Burnside, working with our online team. All of these emails go directly to the public editor’s mailbox which is monitored by my office (myself and Public Editor Associate, Joan Vander Doelen) from 9 a.m. to about 6 p.m. Monday to Friday. We don’t routinely monitor during nights and weekends, but I usually take a look each night and on Saturday and Sunday to determine if there is any major issue in need of correction.

Readers use this throughout the day — it varies from day to day of course, but on average, we probably receive about 30-40 emails daily through this link. The issues can be relatively minor, such as typos in articles that have been just posted to thestar.com, or can be significant requests for correction to articles that were published in the newspaper and online and that require significant amounts of time and effort to verify. We investigate all of these reader emails and take appropriate action to correct when necessary and make sure the correction is followed through online, in print and in the Star’s archives.

Any more corrections-related changes planned for the future?
The next step of this process is to overhaul our online Corrections page and to link all online corrections to the online articles they correct. Our online corrections policy calls for this and other measures to create more transparency about corrections and changes to online articles. We still have much work ahead to create a consistent correction environment in the newspaper and online, but we do have a clear sense of direction on this.

I’m also looking forward to what we learn from our Accuracy Tracker about why some errors occur and what systemic problems might be responsible for these. Our goal is to be a leader in newspaper accuracy and corrections practices and I’ll be continuing to research best practices throughout the industry to determine how we can improve the accuracy and accountability of Canada’s largest newspaper. Our readers deserve nothing less.

Has your organization recently changed its corrections policy, or enacted a new accuracy-related program? Email me so we can do an interview.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Ombudsmen, Regret Articles | Also tagged | View Comments

News & Observer updates its corrections policy

January 23, 2008 – 8:00 am

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.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Newspapers, Ombudsmen | Also tagged , , | View Comments

Toronto Star publishes corrections tally; announces corrections/errors database

January 2, 2008 – 8:00 am

Kathy English, the public editor of the Toronto Star, wrote a recent column that reveals the paper’s corrections total for 2007. She also announced that the paper will have a corrections/errors database up and running in 2008. (See these 1,2 articles to learn about this kind of database.) English also wrote a November column about accuracy after I visited the Star and gave a presentation about the topic. From her latest column:

…In 2007, the Star has published 497 corrections, up to and including today.
That’s slightly less than last year’s final tally of 512 and considerably less than many major metropolitan newspapers, including The New York Times, which logged 3,600 corrections in its computerized corrections tracker this year.
The Guardian in Britain usually publishes six corrections a day, six days a week – about 1,800 annually. Among this year’s is one worthy of inclusion in a Corrections Hall of Shame: “We misspelled the word misspelled twice, as mispelled, in the corrections and clarifications column on September 26, page 30.”
I’ve written corrections for the Star that have made me cringe.
Last month, an article reported on the tasering incident involving Vancouver police. Of course, the RCMP was involved in the incident at the Vancouver airport, a fact the Vancouver police force was quick to point out in requesting a correction.
Other corrections made me laugh out loud at the silliness of our mistakes. One of my favourites: a Nov. 19 article about a new study indicating that Detroit is the most dangerous U.S. city incorrectly stated that Detroit has seen nearly one million people killed since 1950.
In fact, that number represents the overall decline in Detroit’s population since 1950, not the number of people killed. As numerous readers pointed out, one million killed since 1950 would amount to 48 deaths a day. That one was picked up and published by the popular newspaper error website Regret the Error, under the headline The Detroit massacre.
Speaking of which, the Star did in fact kill a couple of well-known people by mistake, a practice known as “obiticide,” or death by media. A Nov. 23 item about actors from the 1960s’ TV series Hogan’s Heroes incorrectly listed Richard Dawson as deceased. In March, an article about Canada’s Walk of Fame inductees incorrectly referred to “the late Morley Safer.” In fact, as our correction noted, Safer is alive and continues to file stories as a 60 Minutes correspondent.
How do these errors happen within a newsroom in which great care is taken in writing, editing and proofreading? Sometimes, it’s because of what journalists have come to label “brain cramp” – we know better, but still we goof. Sometimes, it’s carelessness and the rush to deadline. Always, it’s because those who produce this newspaper are human, and a perfect human – let alone a perfect journalist – has yet to evolve.
Still, it’s important that the Star is accountable to our readers for its errors and, more so, that we learn from our mistakes. That’s why, in coming weeks, my office will launch our own “accuracy tracker,” a computer database that will track newsroom errors and corrections and the reasons why these mistakes occur to help the newsroom identify preventative measures…

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Newspapers, Ombudsmen | Also tagged , | View Comments

NY Times corrections database goes live

October 12, 2007 – 4:01 pm

The good folks at Check Your Facts recently published an item stating that the roll out of the New York Times internal corrections database is complete. The paper is now entering all of its corrections into a central database, much like how the Boston Globe, Rocky Mountain News and a few other US papers have been doing. Reports CYF:

Check Your Facts has learned that the New York Times may finally be making good on one of the recommendations laid out in a 2005 report titled “Preserving Our Readers’ Trust.”
Fresh from a “training class,” a well-placed source at the Times says a computerized tracking system for corrections is being implemented. Correspondent Adam Klasfeld learned of the new system through correspondence with a New York Times editor (Check Your Facts is withholding the editor’s name in order to maintain open communications on the matter). The NYT editor said that no tracking system as described in the report currently exists but that a “training class” was held for a new system. “We are just implementing it,” wrote the editor. “We are beginning with corrections on October 1.”

We reported on the roll out of the system in December of last year after speaking with Greg Brock, the paper’s corrections editor:

A final note from the Times: Brock says the paper does have a corrections database that is being used by some departments. Each department can see its own corrections tally, and Brock has access to the total data. He says they are working to roll it out within all departments. This database was one of the recommendations of the Siegal Committee. It’s good to see the paper following up on this project. We hope it’s fully operational ASAP.

In an email response this week, Brock said the system was fully operational as of September 17. “So it is in place, though we are continuing to train editors who will use it only occasionally because they work on sections or special issues of magazines that publish just a few times a year,” he wrote. “The main news desks are already using it.”

We asked if the paper plans to release its tallies the way some other paper do (see these links: 1, 2, 3, 4), and Brock said the issue hadn’t yet been raised, but that he would look into it. As of now, he is distributing reports to the relevant editors on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis in order to show them the most common types of errors in their sections. It’s good to hear the data is being put to use to help fuel preventative initiatives.

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

ESPN unveils cross-platform correction policy and procedures

March 5, 2007 – 10:10 am

One of the most enjoyable correction-related experiences comes at the end of every episode of ESPN’s Pardon the Interruption, a sports talk and interview show featuring Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser.
As ESPN explains, at the end of every show, “researcher Tony Reali corrects any statistical fouls Kornheiser and Wilbon made in the heat of battle.” It’s a fun feature that’s often fodder for a little competition between Kornheiser and Wilbon, and it also serves the purpose extremely well: viewers get the right information and no errors go uncorrected. It’s arguably the best example of a regular TV correction anywhere in North America. (Do it better? Let us know.)
Now ESPN has taken its commitment to corrections further. After collaboration between John Walsh, ESPN’s executive vice president and executive editor, and senior staffers in the television, radio, print and online operations, along with consultation with experts at the Poynter Institute, ESPN now has a cross-platform corrections policy and related procedures.
From now on, corrections for any mistaken reporting by ESPN can be found here. A link to the corrections page appears prominently on the drop-down “ESPN” tab on the site, and readers can easily submit a correction using a form on the page. Once submitted, it goes to a senior editorial staffer who forwards it to the appropriate person for evaluation. ESPN is also entering every request for correction into a database, and logging every correction in another. This will enable them to evaluate progress and identify trouble spots. And to help with error prevention, its online operation recently added more copy editors. The end result appears to be a clear policy with appropriate procedures and tracking capabilities.
“It’s the right thing for our fans and users, and the right thing for our journalism,” Patrick Stiegman, the vice president and executive editor of ESPN.com, told us last week in an interview. “Given the fact that our news organization has really matured and we have so many moving parts across different platforms, the time was right to formalize the [corrections] policy and procedures with the idea that espn.com would be the hub for corrections across the company.”
Stiegman says corrections will still continue to* be issued in the originating medium, emphasizing that, “we have always corrected our errors.”
According to the new policy, ESPN will issue online corrections for errors that “involve a significant factual mistake, or materially change the implication or connotation of the reporting.” Stiegman says that, for example, an error in someone’s batting average in an online article would be corrected within the story but not noted on the corrections page. This is what’s called a “scrub” and it’s important that ESPN not get carried away with its scrubbing, lest it become a way to avoid running corrections.
As the policy states, “This policy is not intended to cover inconsequential factual errors, such as minor statistical mistakes, inadvertent and immaterial misidentifications, minor inaccuracies in a developing story or font errors that don’t impair the viewers’ understanding of a story.”
Bob Steele, the Nelson Poynter Scholar for journalism values and a senior faculty member for ethics at the Poynter Institute, reviewed the policy with three Poynter staff members. “All of us felt the new policy was substantial and meaningful,” he said. “We described it as: ‘well-thought out, thorough, professional, responsible, comprehensive…’ We suggested the ESPN guidelines on corrections ‘will set a new standard for broadcast and online transparency’ and the guidelines could be a ‘model’ for other news organizations.”
As for the increased copy editing resources in the online operation, Stiegman says, “the amount of content being produced was out pacing the copy editing resources behind it.” ESPN also hired an ombudsman 20 months ago.
Overall, it looks like ESPN has taken the issue of corrections seriously and applied the necessary effort and resources to come up with its cross-platform policy and procedures. While the issue of scrubbing is not ideal, it could be acceptable if only applied to the smallest of typos.
ESPN’s work should also serve as notice to all the “hard news” organizations out there who haven’t deemed it necessary to create an online corrections page. That means broadcasters like CNN, CBS, ABC, Fox etc., as well as newspapers like USA Today, which recently totally redesigned its website and neglected to add a corrections page. Perhaps this will spur them into action.
Good night, Canada!

*Correction March 5: The word “to” was originally missing from this sentence. The word “procedure” in the headline also contained an extra “e” in the middle.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Magazines, Online, Radio, Regret Articles, Television | Also tagged , | Comments Off
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes