Tag Archives: correction policy

What Reuters’ Handbook of Journalism says about accuracy and corrections

July 10, 2009 – 8:00 am

reutersReuters has made its internal Handbook for Journalists available to the public via the Internet. It posted the full document online and Dean Wright, Reuters’ global editor of ethics, innovation and news standards, wrote about it yesterday. (Romenesko spotted Wright’s post.) Here’s what Wright says about the Handbook:

The handbook is the guidance Reuters journalists live by — and we’re proud of it. Until now, it hasn’t been freely available to the public. In the early 1990s, a printed handbook was published and in 2006 the Reuters Foundation published a relatively short PDF online that gave some basic guidance to reporters. But it’s only now that we’re putting the full handbook online.

Several parts of the document address accuracy and corrections. Below are some of the more interesting parts.

Let’s start with "The 10 Absolutes of Reuters Journalism":

  • Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
  • Always correct an error openly
  • Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
  • Always reveal a conflict of interest to a manager
  • Always respect privileged information
  • Always protect their sources from the authorities
  • Always guard against putting their opinion in a news story
  • Never fabricate or plagiarise
  • Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
  • Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe Link

Accuracy

The handbook has an entire sub-section devoted to accuracy. It offers guidance on dealing with sources, quotes, datelines and reporting rumors, amoung other topics. Here are a few of the "accuracy is" or "accuracy means" paragraphs:

Accuracy entails honesty in sourcing. Our reputation for that accuracy, and for freedom from bias, rests on the credibility of our sources. A Reuters journalist or camera is always the best source on a witnessed event. A named source is always preferable to an unnamed source. We should never deliberately mislead in our sourcing, quote a source saying one thing on the record and something contradictory on background, or cite sources in the plural when we have only one…

Accuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality. It can be tempting for journalists to “hype” or sensationalise material, skewing the reality of the situation or misleading the reader or viewer into assumptions and impressions that are wrong and potentially harmful. A “flood” of immigrants, for example, may in reality be a relatively small number of people just as a “surge” in a stock price may be a quite modest rise. Stopping to think, and to discuss, how we use words leads to more precise journalism and also minimises the potential for harm. Similarly, no actions in visual journalism should be taken that add to or detract from the reality of images. In some circumstances, this may constitute fabrication and can cause serious damage to our reputation. Such actions may lead to disciplinary measures, including dismissal…

Accuracy is paramount in our use of datelines and bylines. Readers assume that the byline shows the writer was at the dateline. We should byline stories only from datelines where the writer (or the reporter being written up on a desk) was present. We may only use datelines where we have staff or freelancers on the spot from text, photos or TV and we are getting information from them on the ground. Reporters or freelancers who have contributed to a report should be included in an additional reporting line at the end of the story, giving their name and location…

Accuracy means proper attribution to the source of material that is not ours, whether in a story, a photograph or moving images. Our customers and the public rely on us to be honest about where material has originated. It allows them to assess the reliability…

As you can see, accuracy is a lot of things. Here’s some advice for dealing with sources:

  • Cross-check information wherever possible. Two or more sources are better than one. In assessing information from unnamed sources, weigh the source’s track record, position and motive. Use your common sense. If it sounds wrong, check further.
  • When doing initiative reporting, try to disprove as well as prove your story.
  • Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong. Before pushing the button, think how you would withstand a challenge or a denial.
  • Know your sources well. Consider carefully if the person you are communicating with is an imposter. Sources can provide information by whatever means available – telephone, in person, email, instant messaging, text message. But be aware that any communication can be interfered with.

Corrections & Erorrs

Reuters is transparent about errors. We rectify them promptly and clearly, whether in a story, a caption, a graphic or a script. We do not disguise or bury corrections in subsequent leads or stories. Our Corrections Policy is outlined in this Handbook. Link

The corrections policy contains a lot of technical information that’s specific to Reuters. However, the Handbook does include some good tips for avoiding errors. Some selected advice: 

  • Confirm the day of the week and the date.
  • Check all the numbers – do all the components add up to the total, do individual percentages add up to 100? Double check the period covered, conversions, whether the figure is up or down. Watch for confusion between millions and billions, misplaced decimal points, transposed conversions. Check share prices.
  • Watch the spelling of proper names and ensure names are spelled consistently throughout the story.
  • Ensure the story gives full company names, full and proper titles, and RICs in both the text and header field. Check that unfamiliar RICs and web site addresses mentioned in the story actually work.
  • Check for legal dangers and balance. Does the story cast a slur on the good name of an individual, company or organisation? Does it expose anyone to ridicule, hatred or contempt? Is the story balanced and fair? Link

Dealing With Hoaxes

One section provides a bit of guidance related to hoaxes:

Do a reality check. Does this information fit within the bounds of what was expected? Any wild divergences are a clue you may be viewing information in the wrong context. Link

But here’s the best part — a guide to not getting fooled:

  • Regard all information you receive by telephone as suspect unless you know the caller. If you do not know the caller, ask for the person’s full name, title and telephone number. Rather than take it for granted that the name and number are authentic, check such details independently though an organisation’s or company’s switchboard, online searches and other journalistic means.
  • Telephone the person back. Get confirmation that it was indeed that person who telephoned you.
  • Use the same precautions with unsolicited material received by e-mail, fax, instant message, other electronic means, SMS or in the mail.
  • Be on guard against April Fool hoaxes on or around April 1 and all fantasies such as the birth of five-legged sheep, human pregnancies lasting 18 months, the marriage of 100-year-old sweethearts, perfect bridge hands and miracles.
  • Follow the checking procedure even if it means delaying a story until you are sure of its accuracy.
  • Use nothing found on the Internet, even from what appears to be a genuine corporate or institutional site, that is not sourced in a way that you can verify. Many corporate announcements and much economic data are now released online. Reporters need to be familiar with how news sources in their areas of expertise distribute information. Be suspicious of online information that is a complete surprise or appears in an unexpected place. Ask yourself if this is how an organisation normally delivers news? If in doubt confirm information by telephone or other means before you publish it. Capture, save and print a copy of a “screenshot” of the web page in question in order to defend us against charges of printing nonexistent information. If you do not know how to capture a screenshot, ask anyone with a technical bent to show you how.
  • We have no greater protection if we pick up a hoax from a newspaper, a broadcaster or any other third party news organisation. The damage to our reputation from running a hoax is the same and in many jurisdictions we are just as liable under the law. Link

Using Online Sources

Here’s what the handbook says about Wikipedia:

Online information sources which rely on collaborative, voluntary and often anonymous contributions need to be handled with care. Wikipedia, the online "people’s encyclopedia", can be a good starting point for research, but it should not be used as an attributable source. Do not quote from it or copy from it. The information it contains has not been validated and can change from second to second as contributors add or remove material. Move on to official websites or other sources that are worthy of attribution. Do not link to Wikipedia or similar collaborative encyclopedia sites as a source of background information on any topic. More suitable sites can almost always be found, and indeed are often flagged at the bottom of Wikipedia entries. It is only acceptable to link to an entry on Wikipedia or similar sites when the entry or website itself is the subject of a news story. Link

All in all, the Handbook contains a wealth of information about errors and corrections. Most useful are the tips for avoiding reporting errors and the guide to not getting fooled by hoaxes. There are also two pieces of timeless advice:

…try to disprove as well as prove your story.

And:

Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Wire service | Also tagged | Comments

You Don’t Say: Fixing the blame

July 2, 2009 – 8:00 am

By John E. McIntyre 

A reader of my column on how publications deal with corrections (“Daddy, where do corrections come from?") addressed a point that regularly bedevils editors: Should corrections identify who made the error?

The issue has been described at some length in the article “Who takes the fall for errors?” by Kathy English, the public editor of the Toronto Star. Let me summarize the two main perspectives on the issue.

Point A: The impersonal correction, favored by many publications, considers a published article to be a collaborative effort for which the publication takes full responsibility without fixing blame. A given article may go through many hands, and error can occur at any point. It is the publication’s fault if such errors are not identified and corrected.

Point B: The contrary view, which received support in comments on Ms. English’s article, is that because the reporter’s byline is on the story, the reporter should not be embarrassed by being made to appear responsible for an error committed by someone else.

I am a sturdy advocate of the impersonal correction, which I justify for the following reasons.

Item: The story is the publication’s, not the author’s. Put it this way. Should the subject of an article sue for libel, the writer expects the publication to assume responsibility for the defense. No reporter wants to hear an editor say, “I see you have a problem with your story. You had better get yourself a lawyer.”

Item: The story is in fact a collective product of the publication’s staff. Publications employ originating editors and copy editors, all of whom have the authority and responsibility to make necessary changes.

Item: Bylines are more important to reporters than to readers. (That is why an eight-line brief rewritten from a press release will appear in print with a reporter’s credit at the end.) A reader may register the name of a columnist, or a reporter whose beat impinges on that reader’s particular interests, but there is little reason to think that readers take regular notice of who wrote which story.

There is thus little or no reason to think that readers care who makes mistakes of fact or that readers would benefit from reading corrections that assign such responsibility. An article in yesterday’s edition of the Blat mistakenly located the battle of Antietam as having taken place near Hagerstown, Maryland, instead of Sharpsburg. The writer’s text was correct, but the error was introduced by an intern on the copy desk. The Blat regrets the error.

The reader cares whether the publication is reliable.

Item: A typical comment on Ms. English’s article: The problem in this case is that the reporter has his or her name clearly listed as writer. If THAT writer was NOT responsible, THAT fact should be noted. The reading public will always associate the article with the writer, no matter how many people are working in the background. It is only fair to exonerate the writer from blame in these cases.

Let’s turn this one around. Should a reporter enjoy a reputation for accuracy that is the product of the editing process rather than the reporter’s own work? I have seen text from reporters, passed along by originating editors, with errors that would make your hair stand on end. (I once saw a story sent to the copy desk in which the reporter had misspelled the name of its subject sixteen times; that all sixteen were consistently misspelled was thought to mark an improvement in the reporter’s abilities.)

Anonymous copy editors, at the publications that still bother to engage copy editors, silently correct multitudes of errors. Envision this “shirttail” at the end of an article: The writer of this article identified Ougadougou as the capital of Dahomey. It is the capital of Burkina Faso. A Blat copy editor corrected the error.

Fixing responsibility is useful in-house for evaluating the performance of writers and editors. Its utility for the reading public is questionable.

Item: The exception: When a publication must acknowledge the commission of a plagiarism or a fabrication — the product of professional misconduct rather than ordinary carelessness or haste —  the miscreant should be identified.

John McIntyre, former head of the copy desk at The Baltimore Sun, is the author of You Don’t Say, a blog on language, usage and miscellaneous topics.

By jmcintyre | Posted in You Don't Say | Comments

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

Bill Keller’s regrets

February 6, 2009 – 8:00 am

nytbanner1New York Times executive editor Bill Keller participated in an online Q&A with the public this week. Some of his answers touched on accuracy, credibility and corrections. Here’s one relevant exchange:

Q. You’ve been the face of The Times through the very roughest times for The Times. Anything you regret?

— C.D. Monroe, Washington

… On Page 4 every day we publish some of our regrets in the form of corrections and editor’s notes. Every misspelled word, every unchecked fact, every time we failed to give someone a fair shake makes me wince. When we blunder in a bigger way — some of the credulous stories The Times published en route to the war in Iraq, for example — I ache for our precious credibility. Even worse is when we get it wrong and then insist on sticking to our guns. (I waited a year after getting this job before I wrote a mea culpa about some of our pre-war W.M.D. coverage.) I take some consolation in the fact that we try, as a rule, to own up to our mistakes and even learn from them. There is no worse feeling in this business, however, than the feeling that you have let readers down.

So, yes, regrets, I’ve had way more than a few. Thankfully they are outweighed by the thrill I get working with some of the most talented, conscientious, honorable people in journalism.

Keller also addressed questions about the paper’s public editor:

A number of news organizations have ombudsmen, independent representatives of the readers, who handle complaints and critique journalistic performance, often in the pages of the paper. The Times had long resisted the idea, largely because we thought it was our job as editors to represent the interests of readers. But after the famous Voldemort scandal of 2003, we realized we could use additional safeguards for our credibility. We created the job of “standards editor,” to make sure our policies on accuracy and fair play were rigorous and to help enforce them, and a “public editor” to serve as a kind of independent auditor, with freedom to air his judgments on the Web site and in the Sunday paper. (We also tightened our policies on corrections, anonymous sources and other issues important to our credibility.) The publisher and I hire the public editor for a fixed term. We recently announced that we were giving the current public editor a one-time-only one-year extension. I have long felt the two-year term was too short for someone who came to this complicated place from outside; it takes a while to learn your way around, and by the time one public editor has figured out the job I’m scouring the landscape for a successor.

Clark Hoyt is the third journalist to hold this largely thankless job — an assignment that makes you few friends in the newsroom, and inevitably leaves some readers dissatisfied. I find him very thorough in his reporting, fair-minded in his analysis, and unafraid of hard subjects. I think he does the job as well as it can be done. Sometimes I agree with his conclusions, even if he is calling us on the carpet. And yes, I sometimes disagree with him. He’s not my commanding officer, or the Supreme Court. He’s an independent critic, an outsider with a hall pass and a platform. He is entitled to respect, but I don’t think he expects conformity.

To answer Mr. Lucey, I hope Mr. Hoyt will stay put until his term expires in June 2010, and I fully support his independence.

Whether we have a fourth and a fifth and a sixth public editor is a question we’ll answer when the time comes. The idea of a public editor has never won universal acclamation in the newsroom. There are still some who believe we have enough independent checks in the legion of self-appointed press critics without paying one of our own. There are still some who think a public editor does more to undermine our credibility, by poking small holes in important stories, than to shore it up.

The other day in a meeting of senior editors I asked for an informal show of hands on the question of continuing the role of public editor. The room was about evenly divided. I’m keeping my own hand down until 2010.

But his most amusing response came after a question about how he spends a typical day:

Really? You’d be interested in that? Well, I think my life is pretty much what you would imagine it to be.

I wake up most mornings to the telephone, invariably some world leader or international celebrity seeking my counsel. Lately it’s been a lot of President Obama — again with the damn puppy? — but sometimes it’s Richard Holbrooke to pick my brain about Afghanistan, or Bruce Springsteen asking if it isn’t time for another Arts and Leisure cover story about Bruce Springsteen. The valet brings breakfast with the handful of newspapers that have not gone out of business. In the limo on the way to the office, I help Warren Buffett sort out his portfolio and give trading advice to George Steinbrenner, not that he ever listens.

At the office, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and I have our morning conference call with Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — plus Fidel Castro when he’s compos mentis. Dictating the world’s agenda entails a lot of conference calls. I’ve been encouraging the cabal to save some money by using iChat, but first we have to persuade Putin to wear a shirt.

Lunch at the Four Seasons is always a high point. Today it’s my weekly tête-à-tête with Bill O’Reilly. He’s really not the Neanderthal blowhard he plays on TV. He’s totally in on the joke. After a couple of cosmopolitans, he does a wicked impression of Ann Coulter. We usually spend the lunch working up outlandish things he can say about The New York Times and making fun of Fox executives. (Once Rupert Murdoch showed up for a lunch date, and O’Reilly had to hide under the table for half an hour.)

I spend most of the afternoon writing all the stories for the front page. (You knew those were all pseudonyms, right?) I write Tom Friedman’s column, too, but, I swear, Bill Kristol wrote all his own stuff.

By then it’s time for drinks and dinner. If you’re reading this, Julian, I think the duck tonight. I had the foie gras for lunch. And no time for dessert. The Secretary of State is coming by to give me a back rub.

Careful, Mr. Keller, I hear Secretary Clinton gives a mean Shiatsu massage.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Behind the scenes, Newspapers | 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

San Antonio Express-News alters corrections style, encourages readers to report errors

June 23, 2008 – 8:00 am

From a column by Express-News public editor Bob Richter:

Frustrated by the inability to do anything about the high cost of fuel or groceries and the egg-frying-on-the-sidewalk South Texas heat, let’s turn to something you and I have the ability to change for the better:
Making the San Antonio Express-News the most trusted, respected and accurate source of news and information in this region.
That high-minded language, by the way, is right out of the Preamble to our new Ethics and Practices policy.
One way to gain respect and credibility is to admit it when you’ve done wrong. To that end, the Express-News publishes corrections on Page 2A, under a headline “Setting it straight,” Many of the corrections you see there are reported by readers…
Last year, the newspaper published 494 Setting it Straights, about 41 per month.
This year, through May, corrections are down by an average of 10 per month. In only one month, January, have Setting it Straights even hit the 40 mark. But it’s early. Last Thursday we published eight corrections on 2A, the most in a long spell.
And while we ran nearly 500 Setting it straights in 2007 and are closing in on 200 so far this year, that’s not to say that journalists here – or South Texas readers – catch or admit every error…
The Express-News has long held that corrections shouldn’t repeat the error. For example, don’t say: “The Missions beat Frisco, 3-1, Saturday night, not, 3-2, as was reported on Page 10C of Sports on Sunday.” Instead, say: “The Missions’ score, as reported on Page 10C Sunday, was incorrect. The Missions won, 3-1.
The new ethics code allows for flexibility in writing corrections, designed to clarify mistakes for readers, rather than leave them wondering what was wrong…

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

NY Times news service updates corrections policy thanks to Kristol error

March 25, 2008 – 8:00 am

Carol Goodhue, readers representative of the San Diego Union-Tribune wrote a recent column about how a correction to an error in William Kristol’s New York Times column didn’t make its way to her paper before publication. As a result, the Times has now changed the way it sends out corrections to subscribers of its news service. From her column (found via Romenesko)

…This paper ran a William Kristol column from The New York Times on its editorial page March 18 repeating a claim that Sen. Barack Obama had attended services at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on July 22, 2007, when the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. “blamed the ‘arrogance’ of the ‘United States of White America’ for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.”
The day before that column appeared here, The New York Times had corrected it online, stating the Obama campaign had provided information showing that the senator did not attend services at Trinity that day. He was in Miami.
About two dozen readers contacted Opinion editors and me to ask why this paper had run the column anyway. Most didn’t note and perhaps didn’t know that the correction had appeared only online.
One reader declared the mistake “a major faux pas.” William E.J. Heffner called this “scandalously bad journalism,” adding, “I don’t know how anyone outside of a hermitage could be unaware of it.”
Incredible as this must seem to people who are perpetually tuned in to talk radio or wired to the Web, Union-Tribune editors didn’t know about that online correction. There’s not much time to patrol the Internet when you have deadlines to meet, and an editor who’s already copy edited a column isn’t likely to seek it out again.
I think the Times’ news service let us down here; it didn’t transmit a correction until 8 p.m. Tuesday, a day after it was posted online.
Clark Hoyt, the public editor at the Times, checked and found that editors have typically sent out corrections based on when they would be printed in the Times. “The process has been changed as a result of this Kristol error,” Hoyt said, “and corrections will be sent by the news service as soon as they are posted online. Another example of change in the new age of technology.”
Thanks to alert readers, Robert A. Kittle, editor of the Editorial page, and Bernie Jones, Opinion page editor, got in a correction on Page B9 on Wednesday. Hoyt thought it would run with the Kristol column in the Times today.

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

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