We recently noted this rather serious correction/retraction from the UK's Daily Mail:
On May 20 and May 27, 2007, The Mail on Sunday published stories claiming that TV news presenter Jon Snow had an affair with a writer called Precious Williams, and that they smoked cannabis together. There is no truth in these allegations.
We accept that in fact Mr Snow never had any relationship with Miss Williams, and that the allegation of drug-taking was unfounded.
We are happy to set the record straight, and we apologise for the embarrassment caused.
Martin Moore of the Media Standards Trust initially raised questions about how and why the Mail went with the story in the first place, and he's followed up with an excellent post about why it's necessary for the paper to explain itself:
Why news organisations have to explain their mistakes if they want people to trust them.
On Tuesday evening I got a call from Precious Williams. Following my blog on Monday – when I appealed for more information about the Mail on Sunday's paltry two paragraph retraction – she called me from Berlin. She wanted people to hear her side of the story.
Rewind a second. On two consecutive Sundays, 20th and 27th May, the Mail on Sunday printed full page articles alleging that Jon Snow – the Channel 4 news presenter – had been involved in a 6 year affair with Precious Williams. Amongst many details, quotes and 'facts' it also alleged that the two of them regularly got stoned together. Then last Sunday, the 3 rd June, the newspaper retracted all claims in a 79 word statement, saying "There is no truth in these allegations… We accept that in fact Mr Snow never had any relationship with Miss Williams, and that the allegation of drug-taking was unfounded". No explanation as to why it had printed the articles in the first place.
Now if you're a regular reader what are you supposed to think? Perhaps Williams invented the whole thing and the newspaper was fooled. Perhaps the paper has something against Jon Snow? Perhaps it was a series of unfortunate journalistic errors?
...It's impossible to say what the real story is. Only two people know. But we can say that it isn't tenable for a news organisation to admit it got something so completely wrong but not explain how or why. If the Mail had a readers' editor he/she could describe what had gone wrong and what was being done to prevent it happening in the future. But it doesn't. Alternatively, the Mail could give both people the space in the paper to respond to the stories. But it hasn't.
In an age where there is so much media space, where you can give people chapter and verse on how you found a story and why people should trust it, such a lack of explanation is no longer acceptable and can only undermine readers' trust.
Well put.
