In 2010, The Star published an even 300 corrections in the print edition, out of around 41,000 separate stories. Those numbers don’t tell the whole story, though. Photographs, captions, graphics and other informational items don’t figure into that 41,000 figure, but they do sometimes generate corrections.

By comparison, 2009 saw 383 corrections out of about 46,000 stories. Even when adjusting for the differences in story count, the percentages follow a downward trend.

Of course, I’m under no illusions that each and every mistake in the paper results in a correction. I’m sure readers sometimes spot errors and don’t have the time or the inclination to pick up the phone or send e-mail to let me know what’s wrong.

I especially hate it when someone alerts me to an error catch in one of the comments users append to the bottom of stories on KansasCity.com — not because I don’t want to know what’s wrong, but because online comments simply aren’t a good way to communicate with The Star. There are literally thousands of separate news items posted to the site every week, and neither I nor anyone else could possibly read through every comment posted there by Web readers.

That’s really too bad, because setting the record straight is a basic tenet of professional journalism, and I can say honestly that nobody in the newsroom has ever pressured me not to run a correction.

– via Time to tally corrections, maybe re-evaluate policy, a column from the paper's readers' representative.

… Generally, the Star believes that unpublishing is a serious act as it erases the online history of the Star’s journalism. The Star’s policy on this states that while we indeed take seriously concerns of inaccuracy and will correct articles online, just as we do in the newspaper, we do not unpublish articles from our websites. This policy here is similar to that of other major newspapers, including the Washington Post, The New York Times and the Guardian.
If the Star ascertains that a mistake has been published, we correct it. Online, that means editing the text and also appending notes to the articles to tell readers that a correction has been made.
“Just as in print, the Star stands behind what it publishes online. Our purpose is to disclose information, not to hide information because it makes someone unhappy,” says Neil Sanderson, the Star’s assistant managing editor, digital. “If things started disappearing from our websites, readers might suspect that we were trying to conceal an error.
“As well, the stories that we publish are part of the historical record of our city, our province and our country,” he said. “To remove these stories from our archive would leave holes in our history.”

Derek Donovan, readers’ representative at the Kansas City Star, dedicated his end of year column to thanking readers for helping the paper correct errors. Excerpt:

One of my most important jobs at The Kansas City Star is tracking the corrections that run on Page A-2, and I was recently reminded how vital a role readers play in that process …
While appending a correction last Friday, I remembered vividly the caller who’d pointed out the mistake — dollar amounts for police badges that didn’t make sense as written. I then flipped through the previous month’s corrections tally and realized just how many of them came directly from readers, many of whom had no personal interest other than a desire to see The Star set the record straight …
The great collective wisdom of readers comes from the thousands of specialists who follow the news related to their specific areas of interest. I know I can always rely on military buffs to pick apart inaccurate descriptions of the patches on soldiers’ uniforms, or proud moms and dads who let me know when a school has sent in an incomplete team roster or honor roll. No mistake is truly trivial.
So I offer a sincere thanks to you, the readers. You’re directly responsible for alerting me to a huge percentage of those errors that result in corrections (435 so far this year). The Star is obviously far from perfect, but your attention to detail makes it better.

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 …

Here’s the offending article, which has not been corrected. The quote in question came from an article on the Borowitz Report, a well known satirical website (see last graph):

Continuing in his quest to assemble a so-called “team of rivals,” President-elect Barack Obama today announced that he would name Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston to key Cabinet positions.
The two actresses, who have been perennial tabloid fodder as a result of their longstanding feud over actor Brad Pitt, were surprise choices for Mr. Obama’s Cabinet, since neither of them has been a government official or even portrayed one in a movie.
But in his weekly Internet address, the President-elect explained his rationale for choosing the sworn enemies to his Cabinet: “I chose Jennifer and Angelina for the same reason I have chosen every other Cabinet member: they clearly despise each other with a passion.”
While Mr. Obama was vague about which Cabinet positions the two actresses would ultimately hold, insiders said that Ms. Jolie was a shoo-in for Secretary of Labor.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, historian and author of the book Team of Rivals, said that she was “thrilled” by the selection of the two actresses to Mr. Obama’s Cabinet.
“Every time someone says ‘team of rivals,’ I sell another book on Amazon,” she said.  “Team of rivals, team of rivals, team of rivals.”

As I’ve written before, it’s The Star’s policy not to restate an error in a correction …
There was an error in yesterday’s paper that’s a little tougher.  A story about the last time gas was this cheap listed other things going on in the coutry at the time.  Among them, “Marines in Iraq committed a variety of abuses against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.”
Problem is that Abu Ghraid was an Army prison, and those accused were in the Army, not the Marines.  Big, big difference — and I understand any Marines who were offended by the mistake.
Right now, I’m leaning toward wording the correction thusly:
An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
Does that work?  How could it be worded better?

The Star isn’t alone in having a policy that proscribes repeating the original error in a correction. Donovan writes that reprinting the mistake is “a bad idea because it puts the mistake in the paper a second time.” True, but repeating the mistake can also help people understand the nature of the original error. Some corrections are borderline incomprehensible due to the “don’t repeat the error” dance. Not repeating the error can raise questions in the reader’s mind. Take Donovan’s proposed correction:

An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

With this wording, the only way to understand the nature of the paper’s error is to go back and read the original article. Maybe the story had said soldiers abused prisoners at a different prison? Maybe it reported the CIA had abused the prisoners? Or that the soldiers had abused Taliban prisoners? As worded, it doesn’t answer a fundamental question: what did the paper get wrong? Here’s a different option:

An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section should have said that Army soldiers, not Marines, abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Or, for the don’t repeat the error fans out there:

An item in the Nov. 25 FYI section incorrectly identified those responsible for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. It should have referred to Army soldiers.

I’m sure an editor could improve my wording, but you get the idea.

As a final note, it’s great that Donovan used his blog to share this process with readers and invite their input.

UPDATE Nov 27: This correction was published today by the paper:

A story in the Nov. 25 FYI misstated which branch of the military was involved in abuses at Abu Ghraib. Army soldiers mistreated Iraqi prisoners there.

A nice comprise compromise, I think.

A May 14 article about Sen. John McCain’s speech at Liberty University incorrectly referred to the chairman of Focus on the Family as the Rev. James Dobson. Dobson is not an ordained minister.

We knew we’d read that one before. (The GetReligion blog also felt a sense of deja  vu.) So we fired up Nexis, did a search for “James Dobson and correction,” and were less than shocked to turn up more than 20 similar corrections going back to 1989. What publication ran that 1989 correction, you ask? The Washington Post. GetReligion also spotted two recent Newsweek corrections that we have included below. So here they are in all their glory: The James Dobson Is Not A Reverend/Minister/Evangelist Corrections*. Bow your heads and pray we never see another one.

Roll Call
May 11, 2006
In the May 10 edition of “Heard on the Hill,” James Dobson of Focus on the Family was misidentified as a reverend. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in the field of child development.

The San Diego Union-Tribune
April 27, 2006
A headline April 20 with a story about the 70th birthday of Dr. James Dobson misidentified him as an evangelist. A child psychologist and best-selling author, he is the founder and chairman of Focus on Family, a nonprofit Christian ministry that helps families.

Newsweek
Feb. 20, 2006
In the Feb. 13 article “God’s Green Soldiers,” we incorrectly identified James Dobson as a reverend. He in fact has a Ph.D. in child psychology and goes by Dr. Dobson. Newsweek regrets the [error].

Wall Street Journal
November 5, 2005
Correction of Oct 28 page-one article; James Dobson is psychologist and chairman of Focus on the Family

Sun-Sentinel
August 17, 2005
A July 12 column by Michael Mayo on Page 1B of the Local section, about the Broward schools SpongeBob video controversy, contained two errors. Activist James Dobson is not a reverend, and Dobson did not assert that the cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants is gay.

Newsweek
Aug. 8, 2005
In our Aug. 1 issue, a sidebar on lobbying groups (“A
User’s Guide to the Groups”) incorrect[ly] identifies James Dobson as a
reverend. He in fact has a Ph.D. in child psychology and goes by Dr.
Dobson. Newsweek regrets the error.

Times-Picayune (New Orleans)
August 6, 2005
Headline clarified: In a headline in Thursday’s editions, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization that focuses on Christian values in the home, was called a minister. Although he runs a ministry, his degrees are in psychology as well as marriage and family counseling.

The Cincinnati Enquirer
June 10, 2005
Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, is a psychologist, author and radio broadcaster. A June 3 story on the 2nd Congressional District race misidentified him.

The Kansas City Star
March 9, 2005
An item in The Buzz on Sunday incorrectly referred to James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, as “the Rev. James Dobson.”

St. Petersburg Times
January 29, 2005
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is a psychologist and a marriage, family and child counselor. A column Friday stated an incorrect profession.

The San Francisco Chronicle
October 3, 2004
Articles on March 14 and Sept. 19 erroneously used the title “the Rev.” for James Dobson, the founder of the Focus on the Family. Dobson is not ordained.

Slate Magazine
January 23, 2004
In a Jan. 19 Chatterbox column, Timothy Noah erroneously referred to the Rev. James Dobson. Dobson is actually a lay Ph.D. (in child development), not an ordained minister.

Chicago Tribune
September 4, 2003
In a story Friday on Page 8 of the main news section, James Dobson, head of the Colorado-based family advocacy group Focus on the Family was misidentified with the title “Rev.” and called an evangelist. He is neither an ordained minister nor an evangelist.

Austin American-Statesman
February 21, 2003
Page B1 of Sunday’s Metro & State section, a story about religious groups debating the issue of homosexuality misidentified James Dobson, founder and president of Focus on the Family. He is not a minister.

The Montgomery Advertiser
November 9, 2002
Setting it straight: A story in the Oct. 13 edition of the Montgomery Advertiser used an incorrect professional title in reference to James Dobson, founder of the Focus on the Family ministry. Dobson is not a reverend. He holds a doctorate in child development.

Wall Street Journal
May 11, 2001
Correction of May 9 Politics & Policy article, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, oversees a radio ministry, but he is not an ordained minister.

The Nation
October 30, 2000
In Alexander Cockburn’s October 2 “Beat the Devil,” Focus on the Family’s president, James Dobson, was erroneously referred to as a “Reverend.”

Kansas City Star
November 23, 1996
Because of a reporter’s error, religious broadcaster James Dobson was identified as a minister in an Oct. 27 profile of Sam Brownback, successful candidate for U.S. Senate. Dobson is a licensed psychologist. The profile also implied that the organization Dobson heads, Focus on the Family, supported Brownback’s candidacy. Dobson made a personal endorsement of Brownback; Focus on the Family does not endorse candidates.

Chicago Tribune
October 31, 1995
An editorial Thursday incorrectly referred to the head of Focus on the Family as Rev. James Dobson. He is not a minister.

Orange County Register
March 2, 1993
James Dobson is a Christian counselor. Because of a reporting error, Dobson was misidentified in a story in the Metro section of Monday’s editions of The Orange County Register.

The Houston Chronicle
January 19, 1993
A story Sunday incorrectly described James Dobson, the head of a Colorado Springs, Colo., evangelical ministry, as a member of the clergy. He is a psychologist.

The Washington Post
June 13, 1989
In a report yesterday about the Moral Majority, James Dobson was identified incorrectly as a minister. He has a PhD in clinical psychology.

*Correction Nov. 22, 2011: It was recently brought to our attention that this post originally and incorrectly referred to “The James Dobson Is Not A Reverend/Minister/Evangelical Corrections.” Dobson is in fact an evangelical. But he is not an evangelist, which was the word we should have used. The sentence has been corrected. Thanks, Deann!