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be advised that the Oct 27 Moscow story headlined “Chechen teen diary a bitter tale of bombs and survival” has been withdrawn because, though it included original reporting, it is too similar to a piece already published by The Guardian on the same subject to be appropriate for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.

Teen clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch Co (ANF.N) has offered money to get away from what it sees as an undesirable Situation.

The preppy retailer has offered to pay cast members from MTV’s popular show “Jersey Shore” to stop wearing its clothes, it said in a news release late on Tuesday.

The company is “deeply concerned” that Michael “The Situation” Sorrentino “could cause significant damage” to the brand’s “aspirational nature.”

MTV, a unit of Viacom Inc (VIAb.N), released a statement in response that called Abercrombie’s offer “a clever PR stunt.”

The story also noted Abercrombie & Fitch previously embraced the show:

The offer could be considered an abrupt about-face for a company that previously sold T-shirts emblazoned with the wording “The Fitchuation,” and “G.T.L.” — the show’s common reference to a pre-party routine of “gym, tan laundry.”

Except the original text of the story reported that G.T.L. stood for “gym, tan lunch.” The story now carries this correction at top:

Corrects paragraph seven to say G.T.L. stands for “gym, tan laundry,” not “gym, tan lunch”

Thanks, Daniel!

Myers reports that the news organization will soon implement a new way to handle retractions, an update that better adapts to the digital world.

.. A notice will be posted atop the offending article at the same time that the advisory goes out, and an editor will strike through the incorrect portion of the article. If another article is pending, as in this case, the notice will say so.

As I pointed out in my report about the Johnston column, Reuters simply killed the column and in doing so it turned the original URL into an error page.

In essence, Reuters will move from an approach that made sense when it was a wire service with no online publishing home to one commonly used by bloggers to update and correct their posts.

“The correction/kill policy that is followed at Reuters is long-established by the wire service,” Ledbetter said. “There isn’t a procedure for taking down something that is wrong because for the vast majority of Reuters’ existence, there was nothing to take down.”

Under the new policy, the erroneous post would remain online even after Reuters published a follow-up.

“I think it stands as a transparent record of what occurred,” he said. “I think to take it down – while I can see some argument for that – it’s not being fully transparent with our readers about the process, and it could be subject to abuse.”

One advantage of this approach is that it retains reader comments, which disappear when a post is deleted.

This new approach makes a lot of sense. Now if Reuters would also make the online corrections page work on its sparkly new website, it would be making some good strides.

Readers, I apologize. The premise of my debut column for Reuters, on News Corp’s taxes, was wrong, 100 percent dead wrong.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp did not get a $4.8 billion tax refund for the past four years, as I reported. Instead, it paid that much in cash for corporate income taxes for the years 2007 through 2010 while earning pre-tax profits of $10.4 billion.

For the first time in my 45-year-old career I am writing a skinback. That is what journalists call a retraction of the premise of a piece, as in peeling back your skin and feeling the pain. I will do all I can to make sure everyone who has read or heard secondary reports based on my column also learns the facts and would appreciate the help of readers in that cause.

He goes on to list (in great detail) how he went wrong. Here’s how the column ends:

When more than a day after the column was posted, a News Corp publicist called me, I had already discovered the mistake and told her it was being withdrawn and a correct column written. She also helped me tie down some crucial details, like finding that 2007 disclosure.

I often write tart notes at the Romenesko blog for journalists, the Columbia Journalism Review, Nieman Reports and elsewhere about what I consider flawed reporting by others. I lecture to young reporters around the world on the duty of care they need to take with facts and teach how to check and cross check. Until now I have never made a big mistake, but this is a painful reminder that we all put our pants on one leg at a time. The measure of character, I say in my posts and lectures, is whether when an error is found you forthrightly and promptly correct.

So I hope readers will trust that while I made a whopper of a mistake, it has been corrected forthrightly and promptly.

Over the years I’ve had a few exchanges with Johnston about mistakes and the erosion of accuracy in the press. He always struck me as passionate about accuracy and professionalism. I’m sure this is a tremendously humbling experience for him. It’s a reminder that any of us can make mistakes. That all of us will. But his response is also a reminder that it matters what you do after you discover your error. To get a sense of why that’s the case, read this comment posted on his explanatory/corrective column:

As a layperson, 99% of what you just wrote is complete gobbledygook (wow, that word is somehow acceptable to the Reuters spell check!).

However, I did understand the 1% part of a very clear and conscientious mea culpa.

I’m more inclined to trust the writer’s journalistic integrity after this article, should he ever deign to write about something I would have a snowball’s chance of understanding. I know it must have hurt, but your apology and correction sets a great example and has more impact perhaps than if you’d never made the mistake in the first place. Failures are like that. Depending how you deal with them, they can actually be the foundation for new success.

I hope your editors appreciate that as much as I do. Best of luck and keep up the good work.

I couldn’t have said it better.

What’s encouraging is that NPR issued a correction and editor’s note after Johnston appeared on a program to talk about the mistaken column prior to him realizing his mistake. Here’s the NPR correction:

Editor’s Note: Reuters issued an advisory indicating that the column written by David Cay Johnston, on which this interview with Johnston was based, was wrong:
“Please be advised that the David Cay Johnston column published on Tuesday stating that Rupert Murdoch’s U.S.-based News Corp made money on income taxes is wrong and has been withdrawn. News Corp’s filings show the company changed reporting conventions in its 2007 annual report when it reversed the way it showed positive and negative numbers. A new column correcting and explaining the error in more detail will be issued shortly.”

A transcript of the original interview is now available by clicking on the transcript link at the right of the “listen” box above. Johnston is expected to appear on Morning Edition Thursday to offer further clarification. We will provide updates as they become available.

What’s not encouraging is that the URL for the original Johnston column goes to an error page. Reuters should redirect that URL to the corrective column.

… what happened Tuesday when stories started to come out of Liberty County, Texas, about "dozens" of bodies supposedly being found at a home is worth noting. It underscores again how we in the news media need to remind ourselves sometimes to slow down and let the facts become more clear before we rush to report. And at the very least, to be very careful about what we do say when a story is breaking.

If you haven’t heard, there were news alerts and Twitter posts from local and national news outlets late Tuesday afternoon that 20 to 30 bodies had been discovered on property near Hardin, Texas.

Click2Houston1, the Twitter feed from Houston’s KPRC-TV flat out said there was "Breaking News in Liberty County where dozens of bodies have been found near Daisetta." It had said it was told by the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office that "25 to 30 bodies were reported on a property at the intersection of County Roads 2049 and 2048."

The New York Times sent its Twitter followers this message: "NYT NEWS ALERT: Up to 30 Dismembered Bodies Found Near Houston, Reuters Reports."

Reuters, saying it was relying on "local media" reports, had reported that "Texas authorities find up to 30 bodies, including children."Within an hour, the story changed dramatically.

As The Associated Press writes this morning, "the investigation into a tip about multiple bodies being buried at a rural Texas farmhouse has now turned to the tipster after authorities turned up nothing in a search of the property." It seems that "authorities said the tip came from a woman claiming to be a psychic" and they took it seriously because of details she told them regarding the home and property. But they found nothing …

– via “‘Texas Bodies’ Nonstory Is Reminder To News Media: Slow Down,” a blog post from NPR.

As is often the case, this led to a lot of mistakes — including reports from NPR, Reuters, CNN, Fox News and others that said Rep. Giffords had died. I've collected the mistaken reports and other notable reaction and commentary from Twitter in a Storify story below.

Update January 9: For those interested in figuring out the right way to correct tweets, I offered some best practices in this previous CJR column. And I also previously suggested that Twitter enable a correction function.

Update January 9 #2: I collected other notable commentary about the media errors in this post.

Let me know if I'm missing any notable tweets or reporting:

The news service fessed up on its Good, Bad and Ugly blog. Thanks, Bob!

The Feb 1 story headlined “Backdoor taxes to hit middle class” is wrong and has been withdrawn. The story said lower-income families will pay more under tax provisions scheduled to expire Dec 31. The Obama administration’s budget calls for the extension of those tax provisions for households earning less than $250,000. There will be no substitute story.

More background from Gawker and Reuters’ Good, Bad and Ugly blog.

The corrected version of the story was sent with this correction:

Corrects reference in paragraph six to read “buoy” rather than “boy”.

Reuters’ Good, Bad and Ugly blog made note of this.

As was noted on Reuters’ Good, Bad, and Ugly blog, they meant “persistent dry cough.”

BERLIN (Reuters) – Visitors to a tourist attraction in Berlin have been making off with an unusual memento — the 30 cm long penis of a Lego giraffe.

The Lego phallus belongs to a six metre tall model that has stood outside the entrance to the Legoland Discovery Centre on Potsdamer Platz since 2007.

"It’s a popular souvenir," a spokeswoman for the centre said Tuesday. "It’s been stolen four times now …"

The penis is made out of 15,000 Lego bricks. It takes model workers about one week to restore the long-necked animal’s manhood at a cost of 3,000 euros (2,600 pounds), the spokeswoman said.

The centre is now erecting a metal construction to protect the giraffe’s genitalia. (Reporting by Caroline Copley, editing by Tim Pearce)

One problem: the Lego giraffe does not have a penis. People were stealing its tail. Oh dear. Reuters issued this corrected version:

09:23 25Aug09 RTRS-CORRECTED-German Lego giraffe tail repeatedly stolen
 (Correcting to ‘tail’ from ‘penis’)
  BERLIN, Aug 25 (Reuters) – Visitors to a tourist attraction in Berlin have been making off with an unusual memento — the 30 cm long tail of a Lego giraffe.
  The Lego tail belongs to a six metre tall model that has stood outside the entrance to the Legoland Discovery Centre on Potsdamer Platz since 2007.
  "It’s a popular souvenir," a spokeswoman for the centre said on Tuesday. "It’s been stolen four times now …"
  The tail is made out of 15,000 Lego bricks. It takes model workers about one week to restore it at a cost of 3,000 euros ($4,300), the spokeswoman said.

Reuters has published some remarkable typos over the years, including the famous Queen Elizabeth and beef panties incidents. But those were examples of a spellchecker going awry. The penis story uses synonyms for the Lego member, which suggests that this was an error of fact, rather than a slip up. I’ll try and get the details. For now, though, enjoy some screenshots:

The handbook is the guidance Reuters journalists live by — and we’re proud of it. Until now, it hasn’t been freely available to the public. In the early 1990s, a printed handbook was published and in 2006 the Reuters Foundation published a relatively short PDF online that gave some basic guidance to reporters. But it’s only now that we’re putting the full handbook online.

Several parts of the document address accuracy and corrections. Below are some of the more interesting parts.

Let’s start with "The 10 Absolutes of Reuters Journalism":

• Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
• Always correct an error openly
• Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
• Always reveal a conflict of interest to a manager
• Always respect privileged information
• Always protect their sources from the authorities
• Always guard against putting their opinion in a news story
• Never fabricate or plagiarise
• Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
• Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe Link

Accuracy

The handbook has an entire sub-section devoted to accuracy. It offers guidance on dealing with sources, quotes, datelines and reporting rumors, amoung other topics. Here are a few of the "accuracy is" or "accuracy means" paragraphs:

Accuracy entails honesty in sourcing. Our reputation for that accuracy, and for freedom from bias, rests on the credibility of our sources. A Reuters journalist or camera is always the best source on a witnessed event. A named source is always preferable to an unnamed source. We should never deliberately mislead in our sourcing, quote a source saying one thing on the record and something contradictory on background, or cite sources in the plural when we have only one…

Accuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality. It can be tempting for journalists to “hype” or sensationalise material, skewing the reality of the situation or misleading the reader or viewer into assumptions and impressions that are wrong and potentially harmful. A “flood” of immigrants, for example, may in reality be a relatively small number of people just as a “surge” in a stock price may be a quite modest rise. Stopping to think, and to discuss, how we use words leads to more precise journalism and also minimises the potential for harm. Similarly, no actions in visual journalism should be taken that add to or detract from the reality of images. In some circumstances, this may constitute fabrication and can cause serious damage to our reputation. Such actions may lead to disciplinary measures, including dismissal…

Accuracy is paramount in our use of datelines and bylines. Readers assume that the byline shows the writer was at the dateline. We should byline stories only from datelines where the writer (or the reporter being written up on a desk) was present. We may only use datelines where we have staff or freelancers on the spot from text, photos or TV and we are getting information from them on the ground. Reporters or freelancers who have contributed to a report should be included in an additional reporting line at the end of the story, giving their name and location…

Accuracy means proper attribution to the source of material that is not ours, whether in a story, a photograph or moving images. Our customers and the public rely on us to be honest about where material has originated. It allows them to assess the reliability…

As you can see, accuracy is a lot of things. Here’s some advice for dealing with sources:

• Cross-check information wherever possible. Two or more sources are better than one. In assessing information from unnamed sources, weigh the source’s track record, position and motive. Use your common sense. If it sounds wrong, check further.
• When doing initiative reporting, try to disprove as well as prove your story.
• Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong. Before pushing the button, think how you would withstand a challenge or a denial.
• Know your sources well. Consider carefully if the person you are communicating with is an imposter. Sources can provide information by whatever means available – telephone, in person, email, instant messaging, text message. But be aware that any communication can be interfered with.

Corrections & Erorrs

Reuters is transparent about errors. We rectify them promptly and clearly, whether in a story, a caption, a graphic or a script. We do not disguise or bury corrections in subsequent leads or stories. Our Corrections Policy is outlined in this Handbook. Link

The corrections policy contains a lot of technical information that’s specific to Reuters. However, the Handbook does include some good tips for avoiding errors. Some selected advice: 

• Confirm the day of the week and the date.
• Check all the numbers – do all the components add up to the total, do individual percentages add up to 100? Double check the period covered, conversions, whether the figure is up or down. Watch for confusion between millions and billions, misplaced decimal points, transposed conversions. Check share prices.
• Watch the spelling of proper names and ensure names are spelled consistently throughout the story.
  
• Ensure the story gives full company names, full and proper titles, and RICs in both the text and header field. Check that unfamiliar RICs and web site addresses mentioned in the story actually work.
  
• Check for legal dangers and balance. Does the story cast a slur on the good name of an individual, company or organisation? Does it expose anyone to ridicule, hatred or contempt? Is the story balanced and fair? Link

Dealing With Hoaxes

One section provides a bit of guidance related to hoaxes:

Do a reality check. Does this information fit within the bounds of what was expected? Any wild divergences are a clue you may be viewing information in the wrong context. Link

But here’s the best part — a guide to not getting fooled:

• Regard all information you receive by telephone as suspect unless you know the caller. If you do not know the caller, ask for the person’s full name, title and telephone number. Rather than take it for granted that the name and number are authentic, check such details independently though an organisation’s or company’s switchboard, online searches and other journalistic means.
• Telephone the person back. Get confirmation that it was indeed that person who telephoned you.
• Use the same precautions with unsolicited material received by e-mail, fax, instant message, other electronic means, SMS or in the mail.
• Be on guard against April Fool hoaxes on or around April 1 and all fantasies such as the birth of five-legged sheep, human pregnancies lasting 18 months, the marriage of 100-year-old sweethearts, perfect bridge hands and miracles.
• Follow the checking procedure even if it means delaying a story until you are sure of its accuracy.
• Use nothing found on the Internet, even from what appears to be a genuine corporate or institutional site, that is not sourced in a way that you can verify. Many corporate announcements and much economic data are now released online. Reporters need to be familiar with how news sources in their areas of expertise distribute information. Be suspicious of online information that is a complete surprise or appears in an unexpected place. Ask yourself if this is how an organisation normally delivers news? If in doubt confirm information by telephone or other means before you publish it. Capture, save and print a copy of a “screenshot” of the web page in question in order to defend us against charges of printing nonexistent information. If you do not know how to capture a screenshot, ask anyone with a technical bent to show you how.
• We have no greater protection if we pick up a hoax from a newspaper, a broadcaster or any other third party news organisation. The damage to our reputation from running a hoax is the same and in many jurisdictions we are just as liable under the law. Link

Using Online Sources

Here’s what the handbook says about Wikipedia:

Online information sources which rely on collaborative, voluntary and often anonymous contributions need to be handled with care. Wikipedia, the online "people’s encyclopedia", can be a good starting point for research, but it should not be used as an attributable source. Do not quote from it or copy from it. The information it contains has not been validated and can change from second to second as contributors add or remove material. Move on to official websites or other sources that are worthy of attribution. Do not link to Wikipedia or similar collaborative encyclopedia sites as a source of background information on any topic. More suitable sites can almost always be found, and indeed are often flagged at the bottom of Wikipedia entries. It is only acceptable to link to an entry on Wikipedia or similar sites when the entry or website itself is the subject of a news story. Link

All in all, the Handbook contains a wealth of information about errors and corrections. Most useful are the tips for avoiding reporting errors and the guide to not getting fooled by hoaxes. There are also two pieces of timeless advice:

…try to disprove as well as prove your story.

And:

Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong.

This is a perfect opportunity to recall two of Reuters’ best typos: Queen Elizabeth and her remarkable egg-laying abilities, and “beef panties.”