I try not to make mistakes on this blog but sometimes I do. When I find out about them, I correct them. But what do I know. I'm only a blogger, not a journalist. I thought you were supposed to correct your mistakes:
Almost half of the articles published by daily newspapers in the US contain one or more factual errors, and less than two per cent end up being corrected.The findings are from a forthcoming research paper by Scott R Maier, an associate professor at the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication. The findings challenge how well journalism's "corrections box" sets the record straight or serves as a safety valve for the venting of frustrations by wronged news sources.
The study's central finding is sobering: 98 per cent of the 1,220 factual newspapers errors examined went uncorrected. The correction rate was uniformly low for each of the 10 newspapers studied, with none correcting even 5 per cent of the mistakes identified by news sources. While it is not plausible or arguably even desirable for every newspaper error to be detected and corrected, Maier noted, the study shows that the corrections box represents the "tip of the iceberg" of mistakes made in a newspaper, therefore providing only a limited mechanism for setting the record straight. (Newswatch)
Meier surveyed 10 newspapers, clipping local news stories until 400 by-lined stories were accrued. He then contacted the primary source mentioned in the article and asked them to respond to a self-administered questionnaire about factual errors in the article and whether the paper had been notified of the errors. At least I think that's what he did. The description of the methods in the Newswatch ("news for the news people") account is confusing, lacks clarity and the original paper has yet to appear although there is no indication of where. I'm not even completely confident the information about the research is completely correct since it is so confusing. But then that would be perfectly appropriate, right?
Confusing details aside, the thrust of the story is quite clear: newspapers make a lot of factual errors and when they find out about them -- if they find out about them -- correct them rarely. If Wikipedia or this blog made as many factual errors as these papers and corrected them as rarely -- once in fifty times -- it would be a scandal.
But I'm only a blogger, not a journalist. What do I know?
- Log in to post comments
Some newspapers do take the problem seriously. The international Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) is heavily involved in the issue (and many other issues).
The weekly column of The Guardian's Reader's Editor (née ombudsman) is a must-read; the daily Corrections & Clarifications is often worth a browse as well.
I wonder what sizes the 10 papers studied are. I work for a mid-sized Midwest newspaper as a part-time copy editor, and we are understaffed with lackluster management. If the writer makes a mistake and his/her editor doesn't catch it, by the time the story reaches the copy desk, we don't have time to double-check every fact and tend to only catch the really obvious stuff. I am not sure if my paper or other papers have a policy on what types of errors get a correction notice - if someone's name is spelled wrong, then yes, but if an address is identified as Street rather than Drive? Probably not. I too would like to see the actual research paper. (And because I've announced I'm a copy editor, I have guaranteed there is at least one glaring error in this comment.)
A while back, the University of Maryland published a survey of major online news outlets, ranking them by various indices of transparency:
The answer, in two words, is "not very." Out of twenty-five major websites, fewer than half bothered to publish corrections to erroneous stories.
Hello / bonjour
I came here because one of the visitors of the blog I am on every day mentioned something about a very funny video being available here.
I am sorry if my English is not very good. Anyway this visitor of the blog I frequent is very smart and very funny too. His nickname is Microdot
I like your blog, but it's a bit too much inside US culture for me to understand. I feel more at ease in the one I visit because there are people from all over the world.
I have not found the video Microdot was talking about on Pourquoi Pas but it doesn't matter. Even if I don't understand much of what is being said here, I can tell it comes from a good heart and intention and I wish you all the best.
Valérie
Hi Valerie-This is what I think you are looking for.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/06/apec-fake-motorcade-carrying-o…
A positive story: I reported a factual error in a BBC website story some time ago (in itself a very simple error, but with important ramifications since the published version was what's popularly, but wrongly, supposed). Not only did they change the web story within hours, but also, they've used the correct fact in other stories since. In other words, I think my correction entered the brain of someone who writes the stories.
I have discovered over the years that telling a telephone interviewer that you are recording the call and having them state their name and affiliation for the tape greatly improves the accuracy of their quotes. Likewise, setting your own recorder on the desk, just out of camera range, improves the way your TV interviews are edited.
Sorry about the dropped tag. Should have stopped the italics after the word greatly.
Journalists, humbug! Seriously, it's not an easy job ... but it's still disconcerting that I find errors in almost every story where, for one reason or other, I have some kind of inside or semi-inside knowledge. Over the years, that has been a significant sample.
The latest example was the Essjay debacle at Wikipedia - ironically enough, a story that had interest because it was one of those things that cast doubt on Wikipedia's reliability. All the news stories made basic mistakes that could be explained reasonably only on the basis that journalists were drawing inferences from facts that didn't support them - basically, making stuff up - then copying each other.