We’d like to offer The New York Times a “B” for its credibility report. Our interest lies, of course, with the sections that deal with accuracy, accountability, errors and corrections -- and we have highlighted these parts in the post below.
So why a "B"? Because the suggestions here are all solid, but they fall far short of being anything innovative or remarkable. The Times Committee basically took some of the better policies of other newspapers and suggested that the Times follow suit. At a fundamental level they failed to come up with anything that raises the bar for accuracy and accountability in the media. This is a disappointment, but not a surprise. The exercise of striking a committee and making its report available to the public is admirable; the result, however, represents a squandered opportunity.
This Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate the Times’ leadership in the media by raising the paper to a higher standard. They could have innovated the way newspapers check facts, handle corrections, and track mistakes. Since almost every major newspaper adheres to the same (low) standard, the Committee should have proposed a new standard for accuracy and accountability that differentiates the paper, builds its credibility, and makes others scramble to catch up.
It didn’t. It’s unknown whether this is due to a lack of imagination or unwillingness to rock the boat. But the result is clear.
Good things in the Report:
- There is a commitment to using new tools and technologies to help reduce and track errors, and also to detect plagiarism in the paper. (FYI there are many other papers that currently have a system for tracking and categorizing errors. The Times is behind the curve in this area, much like it was with the lack of a Public Editor.)
- There is an overall statement that the prevention of errors is the first priority: “Avoiding mistakes is our first priority, of course, far better than correcting them.” And: “Last year we published almost 3,200 corrections. We can do better. Our goal should be to eliminate error, beyond acknowledging it and correcting it.” This is fundamental. The idea that some errors are okay must be annihilated.
- The Committee recommends doing more interim and final fact checks with sources before an article goes to press. (It did not, however, recommend making this mandatory.)
- The Committee recommends that, “Newsroom management should issue a strong statement clarifying fact-checking responsibilities and reiterating that avoiding error is everybody’s responsibility.”
- They recommend making it easier for readers to contact the paper with corrections.
- The Committee recommends that corrections be posted “as soon as possible” to the website – “even before they appear in the paper.” The correction should also appear in the text of the online article “with a note to inform readers of the change.”
Disappointments:
- There are no recommendations to make corrections more visible in the paper (for example, placing them on the front page of sections or putting them in a more prominent spot on existing pages.) The reality is that the majority of people who read an error in a story will never see the correction. This means corrections are a failure. They exist to absolve the paper rather than inform the public.
- The Committee is against having a formal policy whereby sources are contacted after the fact and asked to comment on the fairness and accuracy of their treatment in the paper. Yes, this can be an organizational nightmare and some sources will never be happy. But it could be a powerful tool in smoking out fabricators and building trust with the public.
- There is no formal change to the fact checking organization (aside from calling for “more frequent” interim and final checks with sources before a story goes to print.). It is not realistic to expect a newspaper to institute the kind of fact checking that is common at most magazines. But it is realistic to expect copy editors to verify phone numbers, addresses, statistics and calculations, and the spelling of names. Those pieces of information are responsible for the vast majority of corrections and are easily verifiable on deadline. They represent the juiciest of all low-hanging fact fruit. Why not harvest it?
