*Correction December 2, 2011: The orignal version of this post’s headline mistakenly used the word “be” instead of “but”. (“Not a Muslim, be he makes fun of them”) It has been corrected, and thanks to Roger Green for spotting the typo!

From Dan Froomkin’s piece at Nieman:

Experts in journalistic ethics are encouraging reporters to take a more critical posture going forward.

“I think professional journalists have an absolute obligation to make lies transparent,” said Kelly McBride, who teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute.

The first step is “to do the reporting so that you can with authority point out that this is an act of deception,” McBride said. With the Romney ad, that was easy; the accompanying press release provided Obama’s full quote.

Step two, McBride said, is to assign blame.

“Professional journalists need to follow up and figure out who in the campaign is responsible for this,” McBride said — “and keep at it.”

“We have to call that sort of thing out,” Geneva Overholser, director of USC Annenberg’s School of Journalism and a former Washington Post ombudsman, wrote in an e-mail. “Journalists did that, last week, but it seems to me it needs to have been even stronger. This was such a blatant act of deception. Treating it just like any other fact-checked ad, so many of which contain something mildly misleading, is itself misleading.”

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

The second piece is a post by Brendan Nyhan at Columbia Journalism Review. (Disclosure: I’m a columnist for CJR.) Nyhan, an assistant professor at Dartmouth College, is doing some of the most interesting academic research into misinformation, and he’s now writing regularly for CJR. He looked at how some publications dealt with the Romney ad. Then he offered some advice on the best way to combat the misinformation:

… A better approach would be for reporters to characterize the accuracy of ads in their own voice and to invoke non-partisan experts like PolitiFact. In some cases, it may even be possible to find credible sources on the side of the candidate airing the misleading ad who are willing to state the truth. For instance, WMUR’s Sexton briefly paraphrases a GOP strategist conceding that Romney’s ad is misleading: “Republican political strategist Mike Dennehy says it definitely appears as though Obama’s words are taken out of context.” This approach might be especially persuasive to Republicans who are inclined to trust Romney and distrust the mainstream press.

Still, it’s important to be realistic about the effectiveness of this sort of fact-checking. My co-author Jason Reifler and I have shown in our research (PDF) that fact-checking frequently fails to reduce misperceptions among the ideological group that is most likely to hold the misperception and in some cases makes the problem worse (what we call a “backfire effect”). In this case, reporters should not expect to convince skeptical readers that ads they support are false.

Nonetheless, aggressive fact-checking can provide reputational incentives (PDF) for elites to make more careful claims.

Earlier this year I wrote a CJR column about the backfire effect, and how it presents a challenge for journalists:

We present facts and evidence, and it often does nothing to change people’s minds. In fact, it can make people dig in even more. Humans also engage in motivated reasoning, a tendency to let emotions “set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about”.

These two important cognitive effects can have a significant impact on society and debates in the public sphere. They also end up negating some of the debunking and reporting work done by the press.

*Correction December 2, 2011: The original headline on this piece misspelled debunking as “debunkng”. The first sentence also used the Canadian spelling of “across”. I use US spelling on this site, so I corrected that as well. I regret the errors, and thank rogerogreen for spotting both!

The Associated Press has withdrawn the 12th and 13th Ld-Writethrus of its story about the Natalie Wood investigation. The story quoted Christopher Walken telling Washington, D.C. sports talk radio station ESPN980 about his recollections from the night that Wood died. The station now says that it was a hoax involving a station employee who was impersonating Walken.

That employee impersonates Walken on a weekly basis*, meaning there was no intent to deceive. A report from TBD offers some background:

Marc Sterne, who goes by Nigel on ESPN 980′s The Tony Kornheiser Show, impersonates Christopher Walken on the program every week. When he did so this morning, and made up details about Natalie Wood’s drowning death in 1981 (at which the real Walken was present), an Associated Press reporter believed what he was hearing and the wire service published a report about it.

*Correction November 21, 2011: This post originally misspelled Walken as Walkin. Twice. A very lazy error on my part. Thanks to Rogerogreen for spotting the mistakes.

The Citizen wishes everyone a safe and enjoyable Halloween. Link

The above was published on the front page of the paper. Note that the Saturday paper is the biggest of the week in Canada, while Sunday editions are often the smallest. It also appears as though the online version of this message went online on Saturday.

Thanks, Doug and Andrew!

*Correction Nov. 4, 2011: The word Ottawa was misspelled as “Otawa” in the original version of this headline. I regret the Error. Thanks, MediaBugs!

His successor, Patrick B. Pexton, has now weighed in with a blog post that looks at recent errors in the paper, and also quotes an anonymous message from a former* staffer. From the message:

I have been reluctant to write this e-mail. But I can no longer hold my tongue. The quality of copy editing at the paper is abysmal. Yet again, while reading a story, I have found another error — a ‘they’ where it should have read ‘the’ — that literally made me stop reading the story and write this e-mail.

Unfortunately, it’s not a rare occurrence — countless stories and blogs with words left out or misspellings or grammatical errors. Is anybody reading what goes on up on the Web site or in the paper?

Pexton cites three causes of error:

First, mathematics is at play here: Fewer editors plus much more copy equals more mistakes. The Washington Post is not just a print publication anymore — far more copy, from stories to blogs, exists online than in print. The print edition is a fraction of what editors edit every day.

Second, copy editors (multiplatform editors, in today’s parlance) also now deal with material for mobile devices and tablet computers. Each of these four platforms — print, online, mobile, tablet — has different procedures and may require distinct headlines and captions; a story can be prepared by the copy editor not once but four times.

Third, mistakes occur more frequently online than in print, generally, because online copy goes through fewer editors. Stories headed into the newspaper go through more editors. But online errors are easier and faster to correct. Print is still forever. Readers take mistakes in print more seriously than online errors.

He ends with this: “Something has to be done to shake up the copy editing system at The Post so it doesn’t let mistakes like this weekend’s get published. It’s too important to the credibility of The Post.”

Looking back at what Alexander had written, I was reminded the paper had already shaken up its copy editing system. Alexander’s final column mentioned mistakes at the paper. After that was published, there was this response from Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli in a Q&A with readers back in January:

The ombudsman is right that there have been too many careless errors lately–typos, grammatical errors, silly factual mistakes. I don’t want to make excuses, because we shouldn’t tolerate these sorts of errors. But by way of explanation I will say that we have made a number of changes in our processes in the last couple of years and are putting in a new editing system that will further change workflows for editors.

So is the new editing system not fully in place? Is it in place and not working? Have things actually improved compared to a couple of years ago? I encourage Pexton to get some answers to these questions. (And for Post staffers to contact me or add a comment.)

Also: Check out Erik Wemple’s take on Pexton’s post.

*Correction October 25, 2011: I forgot to put the word “former” in front of the word “staffer” when referring to a message that had been sent to Post public editor Patrick B. Pexton. This gave the incorrect impression the message he was sent came from a current employee of the paper, rather than a former one. I added the word in the sentence. Thanks Doug!

*Correction Sept. 8, 2011: The original headline on this post referred to “9/1″ instead of “9/11.” I regret the error.

AP also distributed this photographic comparison of the original and the doctored image:

And here’s a related correction from the Waterloo Region Record in Canada. It published the doctored photo:

The Associated Press distributed a picture showing the mayor of Vilnus, Lithuania, riding in an armoured personnel carrier and flattening a car on a downtown street to dramatize an anti-parking campaign. Upon learning the photo had been doctored by the mayors office to remove other people on the tank, the news service withdrew the photo from its system and archives. The Record ran this photo in the news section on August 4.

*Correction August 22, 2011: The original headline on this post was “AP retracts photo of car crushing mayor.” As pointed out in an error report on MediaBugs, the lack of hyphen “makes it sound as though a car is crushing the mayor, not the other way around.” True. I added the hyphen, and I regret the error.

You can listen here. A transcript is here.

Also, at one point during the interview I mistakenly referred to the “Wall Street Post” instead of the Washington Post.* We noted the error during the interview but I’ll make the correction here as well.

*Correction August 3, 2011: I originally wrote that during the radio interview I referred to the “Wall Street Post” instead of the Wall Street Journal. In fact, I had meant to say the Washington Post. So that makes this a correction to a correction. Thanks Doug!

It sometimes publishes a corrective article when a mistake is made, or it will occasionally go into online articles and scrub away mistakes. If it thinks it might get sued, the Star will offer an apology. But the paper’s editor believes corrections are a bad thing and she does her level best not to publish them.

Needless to say, I’m not a fan.

Officially, the Star ethics code states, “Whenever it is noticed that a misleading, inaccurate or distorted article has been published, it must be corrected at the earliest opportunity.” This is similar to the wording in the Media Council’s Code of Conduct. But what does that really mean in practice? To answer that question I sat down with Star Editor Catherine Gicheru.

Gicheru says that she has no problem admitting an out-and-out error — for example when the paper, earlier this year, mixed up an MP’s wife with another woman of the same name who had been charged in a fraud case, the paper carried a page two ‘Apology’ the next day.

But Gicheru says that she tries hard to avoid corrections whenever possible. The main reason, she says, is her concern about the paper’s credibility. “If you have too many corrections, then your credibility starts to plummet,” she says. And, she says, a lot depends on your competition: if they aren’t printing many corrections, you don’t want to print many either.

This a backward attitude, though it’s one that used to prevail at many news organizations.

A few quick points: If you have too many errors, your credibility can plummet. It’s not the same for corrections. And if your competition doesn’t publish corrections, you have an opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to accountability and professionalism.

The truth is one of the worst things a media outlet can do when it comes to errors is to refuse to acknowledge them, or to offer disingenuous corrections. There is evidence readers feel better about the quality of a newspaper when they see corrections. It demonstrates accountability.

There are some weeks when she fields as many as three serious demands for corrections, she says, and other weeks when there are none. Her first line of defence is to let the complainant simply blow off steam. Often, she says, that, plus a sympathetic manner and a believable explanation, is enough to cause the caller to relent. “Most often people cool down and say, ‘Okay, I can understand how it happened,’” she says.

Understanding how it happened is good, as is talking to people who request corrections. But it’s wrong to talk them out of a correction when there was a mistake.

Some of her other time-tested responses are to offer the person the opportunity to write a letter or a commentary. Or, she may offer the prospect of a friendly story at a later date to make up for the offending one.

Really? Gicheru would rather promise favorable future coverage than issue a basic correction? That’s unethical.

Gicheru also favours a technique that I’ve also seen used elsewhere: finding a reason to run a follow-up story that corrects the error without ever acknowledging that one has been made …

Anything to avoid a correction…

Gicheru says that if she decides that there is no other course but to print a correction, she will determine what to call it according to its severity. If it’s an honest mistake, it will be called a ‘clarification’. If it’s inexcusable, it will be called a ‘correction’. And if it has the potential to turn into a libel case, it will be billed as an ‘apology’. “You’re really pleading at that point,” she says.

I don’t think readers understand the distinction between a clarification and a correction, so I usually counsel news organizations to stick to one term. However, if you’re offering an apology then by all means call it that.

After hearing the many ways in which the paper’s editor goes out of her way to avoid corrections, Rothmyer offers this view:

Maybe it’s because I’m no longer in the hot seat myself, either as a reporter or an editor, but I personally would like to see more Star corrections (called, moreover, by their right name rather than the weasel word ‘clarification’).

Agreed, but what about the scrubbing and the unethical practice of promising favorable coverage after an error?

Hat tip to Stinky Journalism.

*Correction August 3, 2011: The original headline on this post left out the word “to”. Thanks to @scottleadingham for spotting the typo!

The Tabloid Watch blog has an excellent overview of the issue and some of the offending front pages. A sample:

The paper issued their apologies in court last week and subsequently published apologies — though none of the expressions of regret were given the prominence of thier original, offending coverage. A few of the apologies:

IN court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate oversexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher.
The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.
We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies. Link

IN court yesterday the Daily Express apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published in the Daily Express on December 31 2010 in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate, over-sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher.
in The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations. It was further suggested that there were grounds to investigate whether he was responsible for an unsolved murder dating back to 1974. We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies. Link

Eight newspapers apologised to Mr Christopher Jefferies in the High Court yesterday. Reports of the investigation into the death of Joanna Yeates had wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies, who was arrested but released without charge, was suspected of killing Ms Yeates, may have had links to a convicted paedophile and an unresolved murder. It was also wrongly alleged that the former school master had acted inappropriately to pupils. The newspapers, including the Daily Mail, agreed to pay Mr Jefferies substantial damages and legal costs.
Later the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun ,£18,000 for contempt of court in relation to their reports. Link

Yesterday the Daily Record and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.
We also wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past and invaded his tenants’ privacy.
We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.
We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs. Link

*Correction August 1, 2011: The original headline of this post misspelled Jefferies as Jeffries. I regret the error.

*Correction July 12, 2011: This post originally and incorrectly carried the logo of Australia’s Herald Sun newspaper. In fact, the above apology was published in the Sun-Herald, a different Australian paper. Thanks, Kevin!

*Correction May 12: The headline of this post originally read “Fuzy numbers etc.” instead of the correct “Fuzzy numbers etc.” Thanks to the anonymous person who used the Report an error button at the bottom of the post to report this. See, it works!

Fox News simply scrubbed the article and hasn’t offered up an explanation or correction. Noted Gawker:

This isn’t the greatest act of journalistic malpractice we’ve ever seen. But to post the news of a student’s suicide under the headline “GWU Suicide Tragically Coincides with Obama Speech” in the political news section seems a bit… chilling.

Here’s the Atlantic Wire’s screenshot of the offending piece:

Thanks, @akwhitacre!

*Correction April 15, 2011: This post mistakenly referred to Obama as “Omaba.” Thanks, Dee!

Imagine waking up and checking the Sunday paper to find that you've won the lottery, but then learning that the newspaper printed the wrong numbers.

That's just what happened to a Pueblo couple this weekend. Jim and Dorothy Sprague say they experienced a lot of joy and a lot of heartbreak all in the course of an hour Sunday morning.

"I woke up and found out we were millionaires," Jim Sprague said. "(It was) a case of going from rags to riches and back to rags again."

The [Pueblo Chieftain] had mistakenly published Friday's Matchplay numbers in place of Saturday's Colorado Lottery drawing. In his excitement, Sprague called his children to tell them he'd won the $4.3 million jackpot…

The newspaper published a retraction in Monday's paper, faulting the error on "misinformation and an oversight." Sprague said he decided not to push the issue after reading the retraction. And he says the experience won't keep him from playing the lotto in the future.

Correction April 13: The original version of the headline on this post referred to "Mistken lottery numbers," which made for a lovely little mistake of my own.

They say there is no such thing as bad publicity, and we do love a Tails cover gone viral. However, there are a few websites out there circulating a PHOTOSHOPPED cover from October 2010, featuring our friend and all-time animal lover, Rachael Ray.

We want to assure all our readers, and new folks who may have stumbled upon the Photoshopped cover, that the image being circulated is in fact an unauthorized ALTERED cover.

The image to the right is the actual cover that was printed, WITH commas!

Thank you everyone for your support–and if you happen to see that Photoshopped cover around, be sure to send folks to our Archives section.  There they can see the original cover for themselves.

From the Food Network Humor blog: