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.

We could do much more with corrections, of course. At a minimum, corrections should be databased. This shouldn’t be any more difficult than adding a correction field to each story in our CMS, instead of just writing our corrections into the body of the story itself. It would allow readers to search for corrections by date, section or author, rather than having to check the corrections page every day to see what’s been corrected recently.

We should also be much more proactive about getting corrections to readers. If you read something on our news site that has changed or been corrected since you last saw it, we should alert you of the change during your next visit to our site.

His second paragraph offers an idea that fits with my corrections and accuracy wishes for 2009. Thompson also had this interesting suggestion:

About four years ago, I daydreamed about an independent, crowd-sourced corrections site that would allow anyone to post a correction or clarification to information contained at any URI. In some ways, with the ubiquity of browser plug-ins and the like, that type of thing would be easier today.

It is easier today, and SpinSpotter is probably the most interesting initiative trying to make this happen.

CheckYourFacts.org

…The new Times database holds comprehensive information about the nature of errors made by reporters and editors. The editors fill in a number of fields, starting with where the error occurred (in a column, an article, a caption, a headline, a photo, or even a byline).
Next, they enter the field “identified by,” which names the person who called the error to their attention. The paper previously had no record of this information, which is particularly important for understanding the source of more questionable corrections.
The field “originator” points to person who came up with the story in question. “Category” lists the type of correction printed, usually “For the Record,” “A Correction,” or “Editor’s Notes.” Finally, the editor enters the person responsible, and a section for miscellaneous notes for pertinent information that does not fit anywhere else.

Sounds like the paper, which had to scrap an earlier version of the system, is gathering the appropriate information. One more thing:

Brock says the system will also allow the paper to track another common mistake made by reporters: using uncorroborated information from the Internet in their articles. “People turn to the Internet with a quick Google search, and put ‘Fact X’ in an article,” says Brock. “We know that’s happening, and we’ve asked people to please not do that.”

Nice. The subsequent interview with Brock also has him explaining how the paper will use the data it collects to make decisions for the paper. This is really key:

The purpose of this one is to pinpoint certain types of errors and how they’re happening. For instance, if we discover that “Department X” is having a lot of errors appearing in the Monday paper, it would probably tell us right off the bat that they’re lightly staffed on Sundays, and might need more help. It might be a department that, like “Culture,” for instance, would be putting out a Monday paper that has a lot of articles that are prepared in advance. Perhaps they should have come in on Friday, but maybe are coming in late on Sunday afternoon. So, we can pinpoint a problem area.

It’s essential that the database is not only used to deliver a simple numerical tally. Its data should be put to use in evaluating reporters, finding weak spots in sections, and making staffing decisions. If a section’s head count goes down and the number of corrections spikes, then managers can see the effect that resources, and a lack thereof, have on accuracy.
Another topic of conversation with Brock is how this system could possibly catch another Jayson Blair-type earlier on. He notes that Blair “had 50 some corrections, but no one person knew. This department would use him, and he made a few errors. Then, another department would use him, and he’d made some more. And then when he got handed off in National, they didn’t know, and there was really no way to check. Plus, I don’t think anybody thought to check, frankly.”
The lack of a centralized system was certainly a factor, but there’s also the issue of severity to consider. Blair may have had a lot of corrections, but early on he had two back-to-back corrections that were the result of highly unethical behavior on his part. The first correction, from Oct. 23, 2001:

AN ARTICLE IN SOME COPIES on Sunday about a benefit at Madison Square Garden for victims of the Sept. 11 terror attack misstated the price of the most expensive tickets. They were $10,000, not $1,000.
The article also quoted incorrectly from a remark by former President Bill Clinton to the audience, many of them police officers and firefighters. Mr. Clinton said he had been given the bracelet of Raymond Downey, the deputy fire chief who died in the attack—not Chief Downey’s hat.
Referring to the terrorists, he said, “I hope they saw this tonight, because they thought America was about money and power. They thought that if they took down the World Trade Center, we would collapse. But we’re not about mountains of money or towers of steel. You’re about mountains of courage and hearts of gold, and I hope they saw you here tonight.” He did not say “hearts of steel.”

It was followed by another the next day:

AN ARTICLE IN SOME LATE EDITIONS on Sunday about the benefit concert at Madison Square Garden for victims of the Sept. 11 attack referred incorrectly to scenes in a short film made for the event by Woody Allen, “Scenes from a Town I Love,” which showed New Yorkers talking on cell phones. An actor in one scene complained that his anthrax drugs had been stolen by muggers; he did not say the police took them.
Another man talked about opening Starbucks coffee shops in Afghanistan after the war; he did not say one had already opened there.
The article also included two performers erroneously among the participants. Bono and the Edge, of the band U2, were scheduled to appear but canceled before the concert.

Blair hadn’t gone to the concert at all. He watched it on TV while drinking at a bar, and then just sent in a story as if he had been there. His editor found out and gave him a “a formal reprimand,” according to Seth Mnookin’s book about the scandal. But Blair remained at the paper for more than two more years before resigning in the face of growing accusations. So, aside from treating such egregious lapses in a more serious manner, perhaps the Times database could also include a means of rating the severity of an error?
Obviously, this is a subjective criteria. But frequency alone isn’t the only issue to consider. Content also matters.