The Washington Post is committed to correcting all errors that appear in the newspaper, just as we are committed to the kind of careful journalism that will minimize the number of errors we print. Preventing and correcting mistakes are two sides of the coin of our realm: accuracy. Accuracy is our goal, and candor is our defense.
In pursuit of accuracy, we must be open to admissions of error. Persons who call errors to our attention should receive a polite and prompt response. Every member of the staff must bring questions raised about the accuracy of their work to the attention of the appropriate editors, rather than deciding unilaterally that a reader's or source's complaint is unfounded.
We have an affirmative obligation to make corrections, not just to avoid repeating them. Confessing error enhances our credibility with readers, and humbles us appropriately.
Clarifications and corrections should be clear, concise and direct. They must be comprehensible to anyone who reads them, including readers who may have missed the story that is being corrected. The effort to keep corrections concise must not make them so brief they cannot be understood. Anyone reading the correction should be able to understand how the mistake has been corrected.
In some cases the easiest way to make a correction clear to all readers will be to repeat the original error, then correct it. For example, a correction might say: A story in the newspaper of Jan. 1 reported incorrectly that Sioux Falls is in North Dakota. It is in South Dakota. This is preferable to: A story in the newspaper of Jan. 1 misreported the state in which Sioux Falls, S.D. is located, a formulation that would be puzzling to readers who might wonder what state we had mistakenly put Sioux Falls in. Readers are entitled to know what our mistake was in such circumstances. But sometimes repeating the error is senseless. For example, it would be preferable to say A story in the paper of Jan. 1 misspelled the name of Zbigniew Brzezinski, rather than repeat some misspelling of the name. At all times, clarity and directness should be the standards used to decide how best to formulate a correction. An ambiguous or confusing correction cannot set the record straight.
Corrections to graphics or photo captions should, whenever appropriate, include republishing the original graphic or photograph. It is not enough to say that we misidentified Barry Bonds as Marion Barry in a caption.
Occasionally, a mistake will be so fundamental that it undermines the entire original story. In such cases, editors may decide that a new story should be written.
We do not assign internal blame for a mistake, such as distinguishing between reporting and editing errors. Ours is a collective enterprise; we share responsibility for our successes, and for our errors. However, corrections that result from our receipt of incorrect information from outside sources can explain that fact to readers.
Most corrections will appear on pages A2 or A3, in the daily corrections box. Corrections to obituaries will appear on the obit pages. Corrections may be repeated in the sections in which the original error occurred if this is deemed necessary by the relevant editors, but they must also appear on A2 or A3. Letters to the editor are not a substitute for corrections by the editors.
Clarifications should be rare. Errors of omission are mistakes that deserve corrections just like any other factual miscue. We should resist the temptation to try to minimize a mistake by labeling its remedy a clarification, when a fair-minded person would consider that we had goofed, no matter how.
A Note on Modalities: Corrections will be handled by the National copy desk.
On A2 and A3 we will periodically run a box describing our policy on corrections and listing an e-mail and ordinary mail address, and a telephone number that can be used to report alleged mistakes. We will also publish the Ombudsman's telephone number and e-mail address in this box.
