We tend to focus our accuracy/corrections reporting on the print media, and this is because newspapers and magazines (and online publications) tend to give us the most fodder. Newspapers in particular run a lot of corrections. You see corrrections pretty much every day in major publications.
As a result, we're often asked why we don't spend more time scrutinizing broadcast media. The answer is simple: With the exception of a few places like NPR and the online operation of MSNBC, the vast majority of broadcast media don't have an online corrections section. Nor do they reserve a portion of their programs to offer corrections to previous stories. In extreme circumstances they will put one online or in a broadcast, but most of the time there's nothing to be found unless someone happens to be watching at the right time. (Or one of the media watchdogs finds some fresh meat.)
The online operation of broadcast outlets seem to prefer to scrub the error out of the story and forgo any correction. CNN, Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC and (we bet) your local TV and radio news programs don't have static, easily found corrections pages online, and they don't reserve airtime to correct mistakes. If an anchor or reporter realizes their mistake right away, they will make an instant correction on the air, which is ideal. But what happens when an error only becomes known after the fact? There's no universal standard. (Is your station/network the exception to the rule? Email us.)
This dearth of broadcast corrections makes it tough for us to track errors. The result is that the medium with the higher corrections standard -- print -- gets more scrutiny. It's an unfortunate side effect.
But do broadcast media make fewer errors than print? As far as we know, no one has made a comparative study. As an anecdotal judgment, we doubt it. This is partly assured by the fact that broadcast reporters will regularly look to print media to conduct research. An error that occurs in a daily newspaper will often be passed on by an evening newscast. Also, TV and radio reporters operate in much the same way as newspaper reporters when it comes to news gathering. They research, they interview sources. Regular newscasts aren't subject to the kind of fact checking process used by many large magazines. Major news magazines like, say, 60 Minutes have more lead time to fact check stories. But that doesn't result in total accuracy. (Hello Bush National Guard story.)
So while both print and broadcast make errors, news networks will usually just fix their reports for the next time around (or for the affiliates) when an error is pointed out. It will be correct the next time, but rarely is the previous gaffe ever noted. Ditto for radio news.
The editor of this site had a personal experience with this about a decade ago A morning newscaster on the radio reported that 6 million people died in Nazi concentration camps during World War II. The editor called in to say that number referred only to Jews, and that another 5 million Gypsies, homosexuals and other targeted people were also killed in the camps. The reporter simply removed the numerical mention for the next time around. No correction.
We chose today to address this issue and call upon broadcast outlets to (at least) add an online corrections page because yesterday ABCNews.com ran a serious correction on the front page of its politics section. We were struck by the rarity of this correction. (ABC does place corrections to wire stories in the online version, but it has no corrections page.) The ABC correction was given unusually prominent placement because it dealt with a very serious error: Plagiarism. Someone at ABCNews.com lifted material from a Boston Globe article. ABC responded by removing the article and running a correction that states:
Over the weekend, ABC News was alerted to the fact that a story on its Web site regarding the Patriot Act and the presidential use of signing statements bore numerous similarities to an exclusive story that appeared in Friday's Boston Globe, as well as on its Web site. Upon further investigation, it is clear that the story posted by ABCNEWS.com was substantially similar to the Boston Globe's enterprise reporting on the subject. As soon as ABC News became aware of this situation, it immediately took down the offending post. ABC News has taken appropriate disciplinary action and apologizes to the Boston Globe and to our readers for this unacceptable breach of our standards.
UPDATE: The correction is no longer on the ABC News site. We sent an email to inquire if this is a production error, or if the network consciously removed it...
While it's nice to see ABC News running a correction in a fairly prominent place, readers deserve more information. (A screen shot of the correction's placement is at the end of this post.) This is a criticism we level against many news outlets, both print and otherwise. (For an example, go here.) Corrections are frequently too vague. For instance, we think this is the Boston Globe story in question, but who knows?
In this situation it's essential for ABC to inform readers as to the disciplinary action taken. Was the offending reporter fired? Suspended? Given a stern talking to? Was a note put in their file? Maybe. ABC could also take the opportunity to inform readers about its "standards." We looked but couldn't find them anywhere on the site. The end result is some sort of unknown disciplinary action based on uncommunicated standards. Open the kimono a bit, please.
After the National Guard debacle, CBS News took the rare step of launching PublicEye, a blog with the goal of bringing "transparency to the editorial operations of CBS News —
transparency that is unprecedented for broadcast and online journalism." Yes, it was a unique step and CBS News deserves credit for investing in this kind of operation. But where is its online corrections page? What is CBS' policy for handling errors in the evening newscast? On its website?
With a few exceptions, broadcast outlets are unwilling to offer the kind of bare minimum corrections found in print. If they'd like to argue that they don't need corrections pages or a corrections space in their broadcasts because they're so darn accurate, we'd be eager to listen. Honestly.
We constantly agitate for a higher standard of accuracy and corrections in the media, but it seems the first step for broadcast journalism is to first raise itself to the standard met by its inky brothers in the print world. That means noting errors in a standardized way, and not just scrubbing scripts and web pages.
To help call attention to this issue, Regret today unveils a new sidebar on the left-hand side of the site. Entitled "Where Is Your Online Corrections Page?," it lists the major English North American broadcast -- and print! -- outlets that lack an online corrections page. This is a necessary first step for the broadcast world. We've included major NA newspapers on the list because they lag far behind the standard met by the vast majority of their brethren in the top 20 US papers (by weekday circ, according to FAS-FAX).
If you have a moment, email your preferred broadcast (and/or print outlet) and ask them why they don't have a corrections page on their site, and how they handle errors on the air. Let us know what happens.
If we've wrongly put your outlet on our list, please let us know. We'll remove you, correct the record, and give you a place of honor on the right hand side of the site. We'll make a note whenever a left column outlet makes passage to the right.
ABC screenshot (click for larger view):
