Tag Archives: correction tallies

Wash Post ombud links loss of copy editors to increase in errors

July 7, 2009 – 8:00 am

washpost4Just over two years ago, the public editor of the Orlando Sentinel wrote a column alerting readers to the fact that the paper had experienced a spike in the number of corrections. He was clear about the cause of the increased errors:

When the Sentinel tightened its financial belt back in June, it lost a wealth of seasoned veterans, many of them editors. Those journalists not only wrote headlines and captions. They also scrutinized the work of reporters — correcting spelling, straightening out syntax, double-checking facts — before publication.
With fewer people to do that now, less of that important work gets done, and the result is more published errors.

Yesterday, the ombudsman of the Washington Post wrote basically the same column:

…Growing numbers of readers are contacting the ombudsman to complain about typos and small errors.

"As a virtually lifelong subscriber, I am disheartened by the increasingly poor quality of the editing of The Post," wrote Richard Murphy of Alexandria. If typos can’t be caught by a spell-checker, "then The Post should restore a couple of copy editor positions. You have cut that staff too much."

The Post’s copy editors are among the best I’ve worked with during nearly four decades in the newspaper business. But they’ve been badly depleted by staff cuts as the money-losing paper struggles to control costs. Those who remain are stretched thin while The Post expands to a 24-hour news operation in print and online.

Between early 2005 and mid-2008, the number of full-time copy editors dropped from about 75 to 43 through buyouts or voluntary departures. It has declined further since then, but Post managers won’t provide precise figures beyond saying that six took a recent buyout offer. The need is so critical that most are being hired back on contract through at least the end of the year, and part-timers are taking up some of the slack.

Copy editors are the unsung heroes of newsrooms. Unknown to the public, and often underappreciated by their colleagues, they’re the last line of defense against a correction or, worse, a libel suit…

"By definition, you’ll see more errors when there’s reduced staffing," said Bill Walsh, the A-section copy desk chief. On a typical weeknight a few years ago, Walsh said, the three copy desks handling national, foreign and business news could rely on perhaps 20 editors. Those desks have since been combined into one desk, headed by Walsh. Today, he said, "there are some shifts where I’m looking at seven or eight people total."…

These papers are by no means the only ones experiencing a spike in errors due to the loss of bodies on the copy desk. Adding to the problem is the fact that the move online means papers are churning out more content than ever before. Yet copy editors — and magazine fact checkers — are being shown the door.

Carl Sessions Stepp examined how some newsrooms are coping with this challenge is his recent article, "The Quality-Control Quandary,” It’s a must-read. I fear, though, that few organizations are rethinking their quality control process and means of verification. They’re just trying to do more with less. It’s a recipe for disaster.

I looked at this issue in a recent essay I wrote for Harvard’s Niemen Neiman Reports:

For more than 100 years, one of the most recognizable slogans in journalism has been “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Lately, The New York Times motto is being challenged by the familiar phrase, “do more with less.” This new saying was, in fact, the theme of the World Editors Forum scheduled for March, but the event had to be cancelled “due to the impact of the global financial downturn on newspaper companies.”

News organizations are shedding employees. Those that remain are expected to pick up the slack and also push ahead with digital initiatives. Included in the exodus are valuable copyeditors—the people in whose encyclopedic brains reside a lot of what prevents errors from surfacing in stories. The few, the proud—and disappearing—magazine fact checkers are also being told to grab their World Almanacs and Book of Facts and move along.

Accuracy is a huge journalistic challenge. When reporters are asked to take on more work while the newsroom’s same fallible processes and error-prone technologies remain in place, the result will undoubtedly be a further downward slide in quality. More errors will be followed by more apologies and more corrections. And this is happening at a critical time for journalism—a time when consumers are being asked by journalists using digital media to lend support to their newsgathering mission…

 

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

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

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 , | Comments

Orlando Sentinel sees corrections rise at “frightening” pace; the quality revolution

October 30, 2007 – 5:00 am

Information that can’t be trusted is not less valuable; it’s worthless.

Those words were written by Orlando Sentinel public editor Manning Pynn in an important column published on Sunday. (Romenesko spotted it.)

Pynn was moved to write the column after noticing a spike in the number of corrections over recent months. “In the past three months, the newspaper has corrected more than a third more errors of its own making on average than it did during the relatively placid prior five months,” writes Pynn.

Even more alarmingly, those same three months “have accounted, thus far, for significantly more corrections of internally generated errors than the newspaper averaged in that three-month period during the prior five years. I’d have waited until the end of the month to raise this frightening issue, but with several days left before Halloween, and several more corrections awaiting publication, the total for October already has surpassed that of September — which was worse than August.”

Something is causing errors, and therefore corrections, to spike at the Sentinel. Pynn points to recent job cuts at the paper:

When the Sentinel tightened its financial belt back in June, it lost a wealth of seasoned veterans, many of them editors. Those journalists not only wrote headlines and captions. They also scrutinized the work of reporters — correcting spelling, straightening out syntax, double-checking facts — before publication.
With fewer people to do that now, less of that important work gets done, and the result is more published errors.

It has been widely, obsessively reported that the newspaper industry is in a time of evolution and turmoil. Many of the changes taking place are fascinating and exciting, but change is coming at a price. It usually does. As newsrooms shift resources to online reporting and other areas of growth and innovation, many organizations are either laying off or buying out staff.

Head counts are going down; yet there is at the same time a need for even more reporting to be produced for more areas: writing for the web, video and audio for the web, writing for the paper… As the economic picture becomes more clear, it’s likely that staff levels will once again rise. We are already seeing ads for remarkably new kinds of jobs in journalism.

But there is an urgent issue in the present: how can an organization ensure the quality of its reporting with less people in the newsroom? In the case of the Sentinel, it appears that the paper is struggling to maintain quality after recent staff losses. As Pynn points out, many of those who left the paper were skilled veterans responsible for quality. It’s not the only paper in this situation. Hopefully, Pynn’s column will help the paper realize the danger of degraded quality and work to ensure accuracy in the midst of challenges.

It can be done, and this issue is as much about the future as it is the present. If a newsroom loses a wealth of error-spotters, checkers and other quality hounds, it needs to begin training everyone — not just a select few — in the ways of accuracy. Reporters should be trained to self-check their work. They need to learn their weaknesses and be given a quick, easy procedure to go through before submitting any story. (Some publications use checklists.)

Editors should be armed with information about common errors so they can check for them within every story. All employees should be taught the value of error prevention, and the ethic of correction. Technology should be used to help check for plagiarism, and to track errors.

Everyone at every level in every section is responsible for accuracy. We have to move away from a culture and organizational structure where only some carry the quality mantle on a daily basis. It’s everyone’s job. We need to train people and give them the necessary tools and support. And it has to be done on a consistent basis. Words and slogans are not enough.

“Every business’ success depends on the reliability of its products or services,” writes Pynn. “If their reliability declines, people are less likely to buy them. Newspapers are particularly susceptible to that phenomenon.”

Other industries have taken the concept of quality to new heights. They obsess about the quality of their products and innovate ways to ensure it.

The current period of transition in the news industry is the perfect time to start a quality revolution in reporting.

By Craig Silverman | Posted in Newspapers, Ombudsmen, Regret Articles | Also tagged , , | 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