An article about the investigation into the abduction and death of Milly Dowler (News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone during police hunt, 5 July, page 1) stated that voicemail “messages were deleted by [NoW] journalists in the first few days after Milly’s disappearance in order to free up space for more messages. As a result friends and relatives of Milly concluded wrongly that she might still be alive.” Since this story was published new evidence – as reported in the Guardian of 10 December – has led the Metropolitan police to believe that this was unlikely to have been correct and that while the News of the World hacked Milly Dowler’s phone the newspaper is unlikely to have been responsible for the deletion of a set of voicemails from the phone that caused her parents to have false hopes that she was alive, according to a Metropolitan police statement made to the Leveson inquiry on 12 December.

Even with the correction appended, one of the subheads on the story still reads, “Deleted voicemails gave family false hope”. That seems to implicate the NoW. The Guardian has been criticized for this routine correction to a major allegation. Storyful has a look at some reaction from former NoW journalists.

Writing in the Independent, Stephen Glover offered this assessment:

Some people might think The Guardian owes us a more comprehensive apology than a brief posting at the top of an online article published five months ago. But the paper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, does not like apologising since to do so would suggest that, even though he inhabits the upper reaches of Mount Olympus, he is made of flesh and blood like the rest of us. He did carry a story in Saturday’s paper under the headline “Police logs raise questions over the deletion of Dowler voicemails”, but it did not contain the blunt admission of error conveyed by the posting, far less an apology. Ironically, it was co-written by Nick Davies, one of the co-authors of the 4 July article.

Thanks, Norman!

The caption really makes the error all the more wonderful. The photo has been fixed, though a correction was not placed on the story. Instead, a Guardian employee posted a corrective comment:

There were of course some amusing comments about the weed flag. Such as:

And:

Thanks Dave and Jules!

I became aware of it thanks to this rather vague correction in the Guardian:

A Weekend magazine article about a woman who for part of her working life dresses as Charlotte Bronte contained factual inaccuracies. This article, with its related comments, has been removed from our website (Being Charlotte Bronte, 3 December, page 12).

Why would the paper remove the entire story? It’s rare to see the Guardian take this course of action. With a bit of digging, it became clear that the story was removed because the premise was false. The woman, Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, does not dress like Charlotte Bronte in the way portrayed in the story.

As a result of the incorrect reports, she has spent a lot of time fighting back against a series of press reports that presented her as someone who always dresses in period costume, is living in a “time warp”, and may also occasionally confuse herself with Ms. Bronte. (The Daily Mail ran a picture of Cunliffe in costume at McDonald’s. Lord know why she agreed to do that…)

Let’s sample some of the articles that are still online (the Daily Telegraph removed its piece).

From the Daily Express:

SHE is a 21st-century housewife with a husband and two grown-up children.
But Lyn-Marie Cunliffe spends every day dressed as her heroine – Victorian author Charlotte Bronte.
She doesn’t wear modern attire even when grabbing a bite in McDonald’s.
The 49-year-old harboured a lifelong obsession with the Jane Eyre author’s works before deciding three years ago she wanted to live in a time-warp.

The Daily Mail:

Many of us dream of wearing the beautiful costumes from period dramas like Downton Abbey… however few would go quite as far as donning them every day.
But romantic fiction-lover, Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, has taken her obsession with Victorian literature to the extreme – by living her modern life dressed as her heroine Charlotte Bronte.
The 49-year-old loves the 19th century author so much that she dresses like her all the time – even on trips to the supermarket.

And from the now-scrubbed Telegraph piece:

Lyn-Marie Cunliffe, 49, loves 19th century author Charlotte Bronte so much she dresses as the famous author all the time – even while doing her supermarket shopping. The mum-of-two dresses in the home-made smocks whilst doing the school run …

The story originated with the Caters News Agency, which seems to specialize in quirky and sensationalized accounts of real people. Here’s the lead of one of its recent stories:

A pretty student has made a mind-blowing recovery – after her head EXPLODED.Stunning Jade Lucas, 20, almost died when a huge cyst in her brain filled with fluid – and exploded when surgeons drilled open her skull to operate.

You can also have lots of fun scanning the headlines. A sample:

WOMAN WAS SCARED OF STAIRS
PREGNANT ROADKILL CRAVINGS
NAP TIME COULD KILL MY BABY
LETTUCE ADDICTION DIAGNOSIS

Lettuce addiction!

So perhaps Cunliffe should have done a little due diligence before agreeing to the interview. That said, she claims she was misled. This is from a subsequent report that detailed her outrage at the original story and those that followed:

She said she had been told the article would be about tourism and her business Abigails Ateliers. She said she had approved a different version of the story and had broken down in tears when she had read what was eventually printed.
“I have spent three years building up my business and now I am afraid it is ruined,” she said. “I spent a lot of time building up my online presence and now when you put my name in to a search engine there is a story about a crazy lady who thinks she is Charlotte Bronte.”

It’s pretty low if the agency promised approval on the story and then switched it out. Of course, it’s strange to offer approval in the first place…

Cunliffe has been blogging about her ordeal (see here, here and here, for example). She also spent a lot of time over the past week contacting newspapers and other outlets to get them to correct their errors. Some have been responsive, many have not. This has only added to her frustration.

Cunliffe eventually heard back from the journalist at Caters, who said it was the papers who took the tale to the extreme. Here’s what Cunliffe wrote:

Not only have Telegraph and Guardian both clearly stated it to be untrue but Caters the original source of the story has distanced itself from the two remaining stories.An email from Tammy Hughes of Caters who was the person who interviewed me has made clear that “any mistakes are the result of the newspapers themselves

So perhaps the agency distributed the version she had approved. It’s not exactly clear at what point the story morphed into “This wacky grandma dresses like Charlotte Bronte all the time. Watch her eat a hamburger in period costume!”

I’m sure the folks at Caters could come up with a much better line than that. In fact, you probably won’t be surprised to learn some of the offending papers got very punny with their headlines. The Mail: “Do you come Eyre often?” The Express: “The Full Bronte!”

Advice for Responding to Inaccurate Reports

One valuable thing to come out of this is a blog post from Cunliffe that offers good advice to anyone who feels they have been wronged by a press account. She starts by encouraging people to “take a deep breath ,move away from any telephones ,mobile phones and keyboards,do not send any letters .”

Also take time to “vent ,cry ,shout break some crockery if needs be ,give yourself half and hour ,or one hour if your going to phone friends.You have every right to be upset,Be honest with yourself however about any mistakes you have made and consider them and how to avoid them in future.”

Once that venting and analysis is over, Cunliffe said it’s time to get down to the business of requesting corrections:

Now get to a keyboard,contact the newspapers politely and point out their “mistakes” at this point assume that you are dealing with honest people who have made a mistake do not be accusatory.

Read minutely the article in question ,check it for any and every mistake,this may be very hurtful and upsetting but the more discrepancies you can point out when refuting the sptry the more likely you are to be listened to

Next point out the same mistakes to anyone or any site who has posted links to an online article.

Next put out your side of the story be concise ,Social network sites and twitter are your allies here ,they provide a forum for any one however unknown to air their point of view.

Cunliffe recommends reading comments on the relevant articles (“but dont be obsessive”) and “only answer those making wrong assumptions and ensure that each page of comments contains a comment on your side of the story ,be polite and if your comments are removed email the site to pint out that they are supposed to allow anyone who has a story written about them scope to reply,this doesn’t always work but may .”

Valuable advice. Shame about the way she gained this expertise…

This apology attracted a bit of coverage in the U.K. press, as the Leveson inquiry is ongoing and generating lots of news. It’s also, you now, a false accusation. The offending Guardian piece by Marina Hyde was harsh in characterizing what that false accusation said about the Sun:

Hyde accused the Sun of “blowing a giant raspberry at Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry or perhaps casually defecating on his lordship’s desk while doing a thumbs-up sign”.

The Press Gazette detailed how the objection from the Sun was raised at the inquiry. Here’s how the Guardian responded during the proceedings:

The Guardian’s director of editorial legal services Gill Phillips confirmed the paper had received a “strongly worded complaint” from The Sun which it had investigated this morning.

She told Lord Justice Leveson: “My instructions are that the story about The Sun is incorrect and we will publishing an appropriate correction and apology which will go up on the rolling online corrections columns as soon as agreed and will be lead correction in print tomorrow.

“We will also remove the offending two paragraph in the sketch from the online version.”

She added: “We would also like to apologise to the inquiry for this having had to take up their time this morning.”

First, Plommer shared that the paper’s corrections work is more focused on online than ever before:

Increasingly, in recent years, corrections’ priority has gone to online content, and I see no sensible alternative to this, because the digital database is the Guardian’s most accessible permanent archive, and one with instant global reach. This is where most people will see the original mistake, and where a corrected version stands the greatest chance of being spotted. Having the right version on the web also seems the best way to prevent us and others repeating an error in future stories.

The web is live, and impatient; corrections need to keep up. On our website’s corrections and clarifications page, a selection of online repairs is pulled together and steadily updated so that a rolling log is created throughout the day.

She explained that the paper’s print corrections column has primarily focused on correcting errors made in the print edition. However, that’s about to change (emphasis mine):

Enclosed in its finite space, the newspaper column is a window on to some of our correcting and clarifying. To date, it has mostly confined itself to making amends for errors published in the newspaper, on grounds that it would seem odd to explain web-only mistakes that lovers of the fish-wrap Guardian might never have clapped eyes on. This probably still makes sense, but from tomorrow, the exclusion zone will be breached so the paper column can point – in headline form – to some subjects corrected on guardian.co.uk. Word-for-word headlines should allow an easy web search, for anyone wanting to know more about what was corrected. The aim is to give a better taste of the work being done by many editorial departments to ensure an accurate record – and to make the column better reflect the Guardian’s range from newspaper to multimedia site.

Nice work by the paper to think about how it can spread its corrections between print and online, and help make readers aware of mistakes.

But that wasn’t the only news Plommer had to share:

Meanwhile, a new web page – entitled accuracy and standards – now brings together, under one digital roof, information on the guidelines, system of scrutiny, and other tools through which the Guardian and Observer aim to reinforce the business of getting things right, and being answerable when this objective is not met. It is found at www.guardian.co.uk/info/page/accuracy-and-standards.

The above link is a landing page that aggregates corrections from the Guardian and Observer, the readers editors columns, and lots of information about standards and policies at the papers.

The tweak to the printed corrections column and this new landing page demonstrate that the Guardian and Observer continue to think about how they can evolve and publicize their corrections. That’s one reason why they continue to be leaders in this field.

Oh, and I course need to mention that a correction was later added to Plommer’s column:

This article was amended on 28 October 2011. The original said that “the Guardian’s website was born in 1999″. This has been corrected because several Guardian sites were launched between 1995-1998. It was in 1999 that a unified and augmented site, Guardian Unlimited, was launched. The column above has been corrected, and an item will appear in the Corrections and clarifications column.

Note that the online correction specifies when it was added to the content. I see too few news organizations adding this to their online corrections.

Please be advised that the Oct 27 Moscow story headlined “Chechen teen diary a bitter tale of bombs and survival” has been withdrawn because, though it included original reporting, it is too similar to a piece already published by The Guardian on the same subject to be appropriate for publication. No substitute story will be issued.

The similarities were first written about by Dylan Byers in Adweek, when he pointed to a tweet from the Guardian writer:

Byers’ piece noted the many similarities in language between the two pieces, and he also pointed out that both writers had interviewed the subject of their respective articles.

So, aside from withdrawing the story, does Reuters plan to explain what action it will take as a result of the copying? And while were talking about Reuters, I keep wondering when will it make it so that its online corrections page points to real corrections, rather than broken links.

Hat tip to Poynter for drawing my attention to this story.

In an Oct. 21 story about the 1940 massacre of Polish officers and others by the Soviet secret police, The Associated Press erroneously reported that about 2,000 were killed in the Katyn forest. The death toll was more than 20,000.