Poynter Online
Go


Top Story

Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers
Most Recent Articles
1.White House reporters are whining? No story there!
2:13 PM Feb. 9, 2010
2.Glitches, Delays Disrupt Plans for Virtual Border Fence
11:33 AM Feb. 9, 2010
3.KTVU sees 300% increase in mobile Web traffic
11:08 AM Feb. 9, 2010
4.Young Journalists Use Facebook Ads to Reach Prospective Employers
5:20 AM Feb. 9, 2010
5.What Great Bosses Know about 'No Surprises'
4:20 PM Feb. 8, 2010
Most E-mailed
Recent Comments
Recent Tags
Community Activity

Poynter Training
Poynter Seminars
Small, in-person training experiences.
1.NewsU: Picture Editing 101: Essentials and Ethics
Apply NOW
2.Poynter Fellowship for College Journalists
Apply by March 1
3.Making Your Opinion Matter
Apply by March 22

News University
Today's most popular courses on NewsU, Poynter's e-learning site for journalists.
Webinars
Our online classroom is just a click away. Learn more.
All Webinars

Poynter Forums

View Forum Post

Topic: Letters Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 5/31/2006 10:22:13 AM
Title: A lousy measure of actual errors
Posted By: Jim Romenesko
 
From DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: The analysis of errors and corrections in Ted Vaden's Sunday column in the Raleigh News & Observer is troubling on many levels -- and raises issues that ought to prompt deeper thinking by his fellow ombudsmen, as well as the rest of us.

The number of corrections run annually is a lousy measure of actual errors, arguably worse than crime statistics are of actual crime. Indeed, the correction process itself reeks of bias that favors softball journalism.

Mr. Vaden's numbers measure only errors that drew complaints sufficient to prompt a correction. How many errors did not draw complaints? (This is why careful reporters qualify their articles on crime statistics by referring to "reported crimes" and why ombudsmen ought to take note of requests for corrections.)

The corrections data counts all errors as equal, just as the FBI crime index gives the same weight to a murder and a tricycle theft -- one. But of course all errors are not equal. Analysis is required to understand the nature of the problem. What share of corrections were spelling errors? Math errors? Editing errors? Typos? Erroneous official reports that were accurately cited? How many were about messed up facts, or stereotypes, that created a false impression? What is the ratio of complaints made to corrections run?

Perhaps most important, what portion of complaints are determined to be malicious?

We rarely tell readers, listeners and viewers about complaints from those who those who twist, distort and lie to shut down hard-hitting reporting.

At many news organizations, just complaining can produce benefits, especially if it results in clear facts being muddied with extraneous details. Ombudsmen could do a lot of good by describing such dishonest complaints so readers get a fully balanced view of journalism.

And what of substance? Murders are much more likely than petty thefts to turn up in crime statistics. But in journalism it is the easy to verify errors, such as misspelled names, that tend to result in corrections, while unchallenged journalistic felonies lie in the published record.

The ease or difficulty of making a complaint is another factor. Just as the police can make it appear crime is down by creating obstacles (e.g., requiring one to come to a police station rather than sending a car to the scene), editors can restrict the volume of complaints by how they require them to be handled.

One way to narrow the gap between actual and corrected errors would be to require that all complaints, regardless of merit, be referred in writing to a designated editor high in the organization. A rigid enforcement mechanism -- firing on the second omission, perhaps -- would encourage compliance./CONTINUED BELOW

View Complete Forum Topic

Username
Password
New User? Signup Now
Poynter Careers
See All Jobs
Add Your Resume
Post Your Job
Become a Member
More media jobs