|
MSN.uk
...At least, that's what London's Telegraph said. |
The big news this week was that, despite predictions,
Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in N.H. But a few major U.K. papers went to press with a different story -- that
Sen. Barack Obama won the election.
Patrick Goss, MSN.uk's technology editor, summed up the gaffes: "'Iowa... Hampshire... America? Barack Obama's incredible journey' announced the edition of The Independent that landed on my desk this morning, with a page three feature on 'How Senator Obama gained the momentum.' The Telegraph's front page story was titled 'McCain and Obama take second round,' and The Times' article on the U.S. election in '08 talks of Hillary Clinton watching her support 'melt away.'"
Today the Independent posted an apology and explanation, which closes with this statement: "Now technology means that newspapers don't simply rely on print for the dissemination of news. Keep your eye on our Web site." Unfortunately, comments are not allowed on that post. It would be interesting to see readers' responses to that remark, which might be viewed as shrugging off responsibility for accuracy in print about breaking news.
These aren't the only recent high-profile gaffes where printing schedules led to headlines that clashed with the reality of unfolding events. I'm not saying that print media should stop trying to cover breaking news or volatile situations. However, they should commit to making the most accurate presentation possible in every medium through which they deliver news.
I think that, despite the strong temptation to predict rather than report, production schedules should bow to reality. If you don't have all the facts at presstime, print only what you know, or hold the press if it's important enough. If your lead story changes after printing but before distribution, add a correction sticky note if you can -- and get a production system in place to make that possible, easy, and perhaps less costly.
Expensive? Probably -- but when you're in a business where your key asset and selling point is credibility, it's far more costly to look like you either don't know or don't care what really happened.
(Thanks to Peter Bale for the tip about the MSN.uk story.)
Yes, credibility is that important for any news system. But...
