Regret the Error

Regret The Interview: A conversation with Reuters' Paul Holmes

As part of a larger review of its policies, Reuters today unveiled a new style for its corrections. The news service has updated the way it writes its corrections, moving away from an antiquated format developed back in the days of the teleprinter. Paul Holmes, Reuters' political and general news editor, oversaw the development of the new style, though a group of Reuters journalists are the ones who came up with it. We spoke with him about the new style, the challenges of pushing out corrections over the wire, and, of course, beef panties and the curious story about those Hungarians and a barrel of rum.
Go here to to have a look at the old and new styles.

What made you folks take a second look at how you handle corrections?
The broader picture is that I am responsible in Reuters for reviewing and monitoring standards and style. We began a process of review18 months ago and we are looking at all sorts of issues. At some point in that process we moved onto our style for corrections. One of the things that emerged is that our present style is cumbersome, long-winded and outdated. The way we review our policies now is that have a group of working journalists look at policy and standards and make recommendations so that there is buy in and ownership from the start. The group that looked at this issue said the aim of a correction is to show the reader as quickly and effectively and as simply as possible what you are correcting, why you are correcting it, and where in the story you are correcting it. And that’s what our new style does. It gets right to point of what we’re correcting and why, rather than having all these unnecessary frills around what’s been corrected.

The old style seems like something from the old days when the wire literally was the wire. It seems antiquated. Was it a result of the old technology?
Yes. When I joined Reuters in 1982, news was delivered over wires on slow speed circuits to teleprinters. If you corrected a story that had run, say, two hours previously, you would issue a stand-alone correction. The newspaper’s wire editor would then go back to the story, count down the paragraphs and determine what needed to be corrected. So you needed to be specific about the headline, dateline, paragraph, what you were correcting where, and why. Then we reached a second stage when the circuits became faster and we decided that we would issue the stand alone correction and then repeat the story in corrected form. Then when circuits got super fast we decided to incorporate the correction advisory into the corrected story. But perhaps because people were too busy, or perhaps because of conservatism and because we’ve always done it that way, nobody looked at the style of the correction. And now we’ve done that, and we’re comfortable that what we are doing is making our corrections style more effective and less time consuming for the reader.

It does seem a bit more contemporary, something that gets the job done in a much faster way. And it seems like it’s written by a human now.
Right. After we came up with a draft policy, I established a blog within Reuters so journalists could comment on the proposal, and there was a huge relief because it is very cumbersome, the old style. People forget it so you get inconsistency. Above all. it takes a lot of time that could be better spent updating the story and doing additional reporting on the story itself. So [the new style] is better for the reader and also more efficient for our writers and editors.

In the note about it that you moved, you said the feedback form subscribers had been positive. How did you test it with them, and what was the feedback you received?
We went to 54 financial and media clients worldwide and we presented them with several examples of our existing style, and several examples of how those corrections would look in the proposed new style. We got feedback from that all came to me. I then sought to break it down into how many were for and how many were against the new style. And 50 of those 54 clients approved and wanted the new style. I don’t feel that I can give you the names of the clients, but I can give you a quote from one of them. This is from a client in Russia, “It’s much better. From the first sentence you can see what the problem was.” And that was pretty typical of the positive feedback we got.

And the folks who didn’t like it? Were they just set in their ways?
I wouldn’t say that. I’ll give you a quote from somebody in the United States who didn’t like it: “I like old system better. While cumbersome, it’s easier to understand exactly what has been changed and what the relevance is.” I’m not sure I’d agree with that, but I do respect it.

You mention how the actual infrastructure of how you push the stories out has changed.  For the media clients stories can end up on a website within five or 10 minutes, is there a way that you seek to draw attention to a particularly important correction? I’m wondering if there is an escalation system?
You mean if we make a really serious error?

A lot of times people will pick up a story and then not pay attention to the correction. I’m wondering if there is a system for flagging it with extra importance, or if there is a way to get the correction out there so that whoever ran the story runs the correction as well?
Our bedrock policy in Reuters is if we get something wrong we put it right. We value speed in Reuters, but we value accuracy in front of speed. So that means that when we do make a mistake, we alert our readers to the mistake. That goes right down, as you well know, to typos. Sometimes rather unfortunate typos. But we don’t feel that we should hide an error.
We are human, we make mistakes and we don’t want our customers to continue being under the impression that a mistake is not a mistake. If a report is plain wrong we will issue what we call a “kill.” That’s the highest level of corrective action. We will simply tell our customers and online readers that a certain item is wrong and it had been withdrawn. Sometimes we will issue a substitute story, and sometimes, if circumstances don’t suit it, we won’t.

San Luis Obispo Trib changes its corrections

The San Luis Obispo Tribune has changed the way it handles corrections. A column by editor Sandra Duerr notes that the paper will now pulish all corrections on A2, and corrections will contain more information to help offer more context for readers. From the column:

You may have noticed a recent change in how we handle corrections and clarifications.
We used to publish them in the sections where the stories appeared, such as Local, Business or Sports. But – to make them easier to find — we have now consolidated all of them on Page A2. We also have revised the information in our corrections to better explain what the story was about that contained the error, to state what was wrong, and to clarify the correct information.
Managing Editor Tad Weber, whose duties include overseeing this issue, said that "our former way of writing corrections was too clipped, and readers did not get enough context to understand what we were correcting."
As I’ve noted in this column before, we strive for both accuracy and balance in our daily news report. Our newspaper staff handles a great deal of information daily — a news reporter, for example, will generate 300 stories and briefs a year.
We build in safeguards to try to ensure accuracy and fairness. Reporters and editors discuss stories while they are being reported and after they are written to identify and address any questions. We double check all information, including that which seems out of character or off base. At least two editors read every single local story, and three or more read any local stories destined for page one. We check each other’s headlines to make sure they summarize the story correctly. Accuracy is a key part of every employee’s annual evaluation.
We also don’t publish information based on anonymous sources unless the information is the critical element of the story and we receive it firsthand from the individuals involved. Our reasoning is that sources are more likely to tell us the truth if we publish their names. If we do decide to use anonymous sources, either Weber or I must approve the usage.
Yet despite our best efforts, some mistakes occur. On Friday, for example, a front-page headline said a woman pleaded not guilty to six felony counts, yet because of an editing error, the first paragraph of the story said four; later the story made clear there were six.
It’s our policy to correct all errors and clarify any misstatements promptly. So we immediately fixed the error on our Web site, sanluisobis po.com, and we published a correction Saturday morning...

A.M. Rosenthal and the modern correction

Below is a column by Regret editor Craig Silverman that was recently published by Editor & Publisher.  We apologize for the delay in putting it on the site.

Rosenthal's Legacy: The Corrections
Former New York Times Executive Editor A. M. Rosenthal modernized and standardized the practice of printed corrections. The media landscape has evolved at an often furious pace since 1972, yet the correction has largely gone unchanged. Now, this expert declares, a new "modern" version is needed.

By Craig Silverman

(May 16, 2006) -- The achievements of former New York Times Executive Editor A.M. Rosenthal have been given the full court parse since his passing last week. His obituaries nearly all led with his reputation as a demanding, temperamental leader of the newsroom. They went on to praise his writing ability, his expansion of the Times' coverage areas and footprint, and his decision to publish the Pentagon Papers. Mingled with his personal peccadilloes and professional accomplishments was often a one sentence ode to Rosenthal as the father of the modern newspaper correction.

The Associated Press noted Rosenthal, "...began the paper's practice, now imitated by many others, of running corrections as a prominent daily fixture." The Los Angeles Times wrote, "When the newspaper erred, he insisted that it admit its mistakes in a daily Corrections column, which he introduced in 1972. He later added the Editor's Note, which addressed flaws such as errors of omission and lapses in taste and standards."

As former New York Times Assistant Managing Editor Allan M. Siegal wrote in the introduction to the 2002 collection of amusing Times corrections, "Kill Duck Before Serving," Rosenthal told his department leaders in 1970 that, "corrections or denials or amplifications don't really catch up with the original because they are not given proper display."

At the time, the Times, like many other publications in North America, ran its corrections throughout the paper. Corrections would appear in every section, in different places, written in different ways, and often under different headings. If you read the initial error, the chances of you happening upon the correction were slim. It was accuracy roulette.

Two years after Rosenthal's missive, the paper anchored its corrections in one place inside the paper. Now, the logic went, people knew where to find them every day. The industry cheered, and many papers fell into line. Today, almost 35 years after Rosenthal created the modern correction, you can pick up nearly any North American city daily, open it to page two, and spot one or more corrections tucked away in the bottom corner.

Times reporter questions the corrections

David Cay Johnston, a Pulitzer-winning reporter for the New York Times, fired off an interesting letter to Romenesko yesterday after he read a column about corrections written by the ombudsman of the Raleigh News & Observer.
In the column, the News & Observer's Ted Vaden noted the number of corrections run by his paper last year, compared the tally with papers of similar size, and answered a few common questions that readers have about corrections. He also made a suggestion that the paper disclose more information in its corrections and say it's sorry more often. All standard fare in a correction tally column (see examples here here and here.) Here's how Vaden's column began:

Journalists hate to be wrong. Even more, we hate to admit we're wrong. That's why it's so painful for newspapers to issue corrections to the inevitable errors that occur when you publish the equivalent of a small book each day, then another the next day.
Mistakes damage not only the stories in which they occur. They undermine reader confidence in the work of the paper.

More about his opening salvo later.
Johnston takes issue with the idea that counting the number of corrections is an accurate measure of the true number of errors or the factual quality of the paper's reporting. He also criticized the fact that Vaden's tally didn't separate out the kinds of errors (how many were spelling errors, numerical errors, misquotes etc.). This breakdown should be standard practice for a correction tally report, and many papers do provide it. It's a good suggestion for Vaden to heed for next year.
Johnston's point about the drawbacks of simply counting corrections is well taken. There are many errors that go unnoticed and therefore uncorrected, and some errors are the result of incorrect information provided by a third party, such as the police. Also, as Johnston notes, not every error is equal. Some are of course worse than others, though we often say there's no such thing as an acceptable error. From Johnston's letter:

...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?

As we noted above, many newspapers will break down the type of errors/correction in this type of report, and the News & Observer should move to this method for future reports.

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.

This is a valid point. Newsrooms receive a constant stream of complaints from people and organizations who seek to further their point of view/company/cause. There are also so-called "fact checking" organizations who are closely linked with one side of an issue. They use their resources to pressure news organizations into presenting their point of view (and only their point of view), and they frequently mobilize their membership to write letters to the editor or call for a correction. The public likely isn't aware of the constant onslaught of criticism and continuous calls for correction. This is an issue that takes up a lot of ombudsman hours and it would be interesting to see it tackled and -- better yet -- quantified for readers.

...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.

This too is valid. We often hear from readers who feel their request for correction has been ignored or unacceptably delayed. Many newspapers now have a centralized process for receiving and considering corrections, but things still fall through the cracks. We can and must do better.

...The correction process is also biased against tough reporting.
Hardly anyone complains about errors that make them look good. All sorts of errors can be found in stories with heroic themes (rescues, crimes solved, etc.) and in stories about politicians, actors and athletes without any complaints.
Lack of corrections should never be taken as an indication that a journalist does quality work. One can write pap and never get a complaint even though the work is riddled with errors of fact, omission and distortion.

A lack of corrections is not the whole ball game, but a reporter whose work consistently requires corrections should not be ignored. Offer them training, make them to recheck their work before sending it on to an editor. If the problem persists, tell them to consider another line of work. Reporters doing investigative or hard-hitting work will naturally elicit more complaints and scrutiny. But corrections are for factual errors; they aren't biased, even though the person requesting one may be. Though a "tough" article may motivate someone to call for a correction more than a puff piece, they will only have a case if an error was made. So prevention remains the best defense of all -- regardless of the kind of journalism being practiced.

...Perhaps we should think about corrections as a measure of integrity -- and running many may signify commitment to fact, openness to complaints and high reader expectations.

The key here is "may." In some cases, that may very well be the reality. But a flood of corrections for entirely preventable errors is no badge of honor. But we do agree that news organizations that create a solid mechanism for preventing and correcting errors should be celebrated. The worst kind of published error is one that goes uncorrected.

...There are reporters who spot mistakes in their own work that no one complained about, and submit corrections, a point no reader would imagine based on Mr. Vaden's unqualified assertions at the top of his column. What does it say about our craft that this is the just the kind of stereotypical false impression that is likely to stand uncorrected?

Johnston is taking issue with Vaden's statement that, "we hate to admit we're wrong. That's why it's so painful for newspapers to issue corrections..." We'd agree that this reinforces many of the criticisms levelled against the media when it comes to errors. So is Vaden confirming the suspicions, or unfairly characterizing the attitude of his fellow journalists? We'd be interested to know if he wrote this as a result of his interaction with people at the News & Observer.

Ah, but here's the good news: An award-winning reporter at one of journalism's most prestigious media outlets took the time to ponder and write about corrections. (Sorry, it just doesn't happen that often.) Johnston's thoughtful letter raises many good issues and has stirred the discussion. Only good things can come from this questioning. We just hope the discussion continues at all levels inside the newsroom. That's how things will begin to change.

Reuters updates its corrections style

Reuters moved this today:

From June 5, Reuters will adopt a simpler style on corrections to make it easier for subscribers to see what has been corrected in a news item and where. A sample of subscribers worldwide has seen the style and feedback was very positive. The changes are part of a wider review of our corrections format which is under way.
For comments or queries, please contact XXX
Here is an example of the new style compared with the old style.

NEW STYLE
CORRECTED - Attorney pleads guilty in Milberg case
Corrects final paragraph to "in addition to Bershad and Schulman" instead of "in addition to Bershad and Lerach".
LOS ANGELES, May 22 (Reuters) - A Los Angeles attorney has admitted to passing illegal kickbacks from Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the nation's No. 1 class action law firm, to a plaintiff as part of a widening federal probe, according to court documents filed on Monday

OLD STYLE
CORRECTED - Attorney pleads guilty in Milberg case
In May 22 LOS ANGELES story headlined "Attorney pleads guilty in Milberg case," please read in final paragraph, "In addition to Bershad and Schulman ...," instead of, "In addition to Bershad and Lerach..." (corrects to show that Schulman, not Lerach, was indicted).

A corrected version follows.
LOS ANGELES, May 22 (Reuters) - A Los Angeles attorney has admitted to passing illegal kickbacks from Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the nation's No. 1 class action law firm, to a plaintiff as part of a widening federal probe, according to court documents filed on Monday ...

A NYT corrections Q&A

The Web Journal of Byron "Barney" Calame, Public Editor of the New York Times, had a recent entry about corrections. Not exactly earth-shaking information, but a good basic overview of how the Times handles corrections.

Tad Weber, the managing editor of The Tribune, a paper on California’s central coast, wrote in with questions about The Times’s corrections policy. Many of his questions are similar to those that have been raised by readers. His message was sent to Bill Borders, a senior editor at the paper who oversees the corrections process. Their exchange is provided below in a Q&A format.

—

Q: The NYT repeats what was wrong in the course of saying what is right. Why does the paper do that?
A: We repeat what was wrong only to the extent that it is necessary to the understanding of the correction. The goal is to avoid having someone unfamiliar with the original mistake read the correction and think, What in the hell was THAT about?

We wish more papers did this.

Q: What are the key principles guiding corrections in the NYT?
A: See stylebook [entries below]. The key principles are to be totally honest and totally transparent. To level with the readers 100 percent.

Q: Is the paper satisfied with how it handles corrections, or could the process or what gets published be improved? If yes, how so?
A: In general, it seems to work (except that there are still too many errors). The process would be better if we got the corrections into the paper faster, and THAT depends on faster action on the desks, once we know or suspect that we have erred. We are constantly working to improve this.

Q: Why does the NYT put corrections on Page A2?
A: We want them to be in a place that is prominent and reliable — where readers know to look for them. (Errors in weekly sections are usually corrected in those sections, to increase the chance that a correction will be seen by the people who saw the original error.)

Q: If there is anything else useful you think I should know, please include it.
A: We take this responsibility very seriously, with the support from the highest level of New York Times management. That’s not only a matter of simple fairness, but also because corrections enhance our credibility; everybody makes mistakes but not everybody admits it.

Questioning the Times questionnaire

The New York Times recently introduced a questionnaire that all freelancers will have to fill out before being allowed to work for the paper. The announcement of the questionnaire was leaked a while back, but now the questions themselves have made it into the daylight. Jeff Jarvis lists the questions and offers an excellent suggestion for the Times: make staff fill it out as well. He also calls for journalists to maintain an online disclosure page similar to the one on his site. We concur.
To get the ball rolling, the editor of this site has filled out the questionnaire and made disclosures here; Jarvis posted his completed questionnaire on his disclosures page here.
The questionnaire itself is a good idea. The Times has kept the form to eight questions, and they all seem fair and logical. The positive thing about this initiative is that the Times is acknowledging that -- heavens, no! -- journalists are people just like anyone else. They get involved in their community, they have their own opinions, they invest in the market. These things don't automatically influence how a reporter operates professionally. But they can sometimes influence judgment and, just as importantly, create a perception that the journalist has been influenced, or is not able to treat certain topics, companies or people fairly.
You'll notice we haven't dropped the "o" bomb (objectivity), and that's because nobody is objective. As a journalist, you can be fair and accurate and ethical and professional, but objectivity is a load of horse puckey. While many still think it's preached at journalism schools, we think the reality is that most professors have sacrificed this old and decrepit sacred cow in favor of more realistic, practical values. Media experts and press critics have been hammering away at objectivity as a professional virtue for a good decade or more, and it appears to be slowly fading from the lexicon. To which we say: huzzah.

That the Times is seeking to define the areas of personal involvement and investment for its freelancers is logical. It's also a smart bit of butt covering, provided the paper actually puts these questionnaires to use in assigning or accepting stories. But here's the problem. Rather, here are three:

1. By not requiring its staff members to fill out the questionnaire, the Times is creating a two-tier system of disclosure within the paper. Just because someone is a freelancer, it doesn't mean that they are more likely to plagiarize, get facts wrong, accept junkets, or allow their personal convictions or interests to cloud their work. A bit of disclosure is required here. The editor of this site, Craig Silverman, works as a freelance writer for magazines, newspapers, websites, and companies. He is a member of the Canadian Freelance Union and the president of the Quebec chapter of the Professional Writers Association of Canada, a national organization of freelance writers. So, obviously, he is heavily involved in the Canadian freelance community, and his personal opinion is that there are good and bad freelancers just as there are good and bad staff members. Singling out one group won't solve the problem. Position does not dictate professionalism. Yet the Times seems to be sending the message that the investments, community activities and personal beliefs of staff members have no effect on their work, and that things are different for freelancers. It's doubtful that senior editors there would be willing to argue this, yet the questionnaire remains for freelancers only. Staff members come under much more scrutiny from outside interests because of their position, yet they get a free pass? It doesn't make sense. The Times does have its detailed Ethical Journalism policy for staff members, but having a written policy is not the same as asking for specific information from each person.
2. The second concern with the questionnaire is that we don't really know how it will be used by the Times. Many publications and news operations have written guidelines about accuracy and ethics and all manner of other professional codes, but these policies aren't worth anything if the organization doesn't implement practices, training, and other concrete initiatives to make policy reality. The questionnaire is a good idea, but how will it be used? If an editor takes a freelancer off a story or declines a pitch based on something in their questionnaire, does it get marked in their file? What are the rules governing an editor's call? The questions could go on and on, and the initial Times memo  notes that, "The questionnaire...will be reviewed by senior editors in the department for which the freelancer works. On the basis of the information submitted, the editors will determine what future assignments are appropriate for the stringer or freelancer." The problem here is that the questionnaire is pubic public (yes...we wrote "pubic" instead of "public"), and the rules governing its application aren't. The result is a lot of questions. Hopefully, the Times can answer them for its freelancers, staff and readership.
3. You knew this was coming, didn't you? Question number 8 reads:

Has anything you’ve written later resulted in a published editor’s note or retraction for deliberate falsehood or plagiarism or become the subject of a lawsuit involving allegations of deliberate falsehood? (If yes, please include details about the publication and your role in the article or story. If a lawsuit, please describe the disposition of the case.)

Why not expand the scope of this question? As it reads, someone would only have to disclose editor's notes relating to plagiarism or deliberate falsehoods. What if a freelancer's work resulted in an editor's note based on inaccurate reporting? Shouldn't this be disclosed? The Times should also ask if their work is no longer accepted at certain publications due to factual errors. For example, wouldn't the Times want to know about the litany of mistakes in this Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Salon/Rolling Stone article? There was no plagiarism, but there were a lot of mistakes. This wouldn't necessarily lead them to deny a piece from him, but it would definitely help when it comes to editing and fact checking the piece. A reporter shouldn't have to list every correction they've been responsible for, but all editor's note-level errors should be noted.

A correction, denied

Gawker linked to an interesting post on the Tabloid Baby blog that offers a behind the scenes look at why the New York Times denied one request for correction. Tabloid Baby noted what it thought was an error in this Times article about NY Post gossip columnist Cindy Adams. The piece made reference to how reporters from various entertainment outlets would be "expected to remain corralled behind a length of velvet rope" at a movie premiere. It listed three outlets as examples: Variety, "Entertainment Tonight" and "A Current Affair." Says Tabloid Baby:

A Current Affair was canceled in October 2005, so there’s no way one of its reporters was behind that velvet rope. Additionally, A Current Affair was regularly denied access to celebrity red carpet lines, because it did real tabloid entertainment journalism and refused to regurgitate studio pap and myths, like ET. So you'd figure the Times would at least cop to placing a nonexistent reporter at the scene, no?

The Times responded to the request for correction:

Dear Reader:
I am the corrections editor for the Metro department of The Times. Your e-mail was forwarded to me for review.
You are correct in noting that "A Current Affair" has been canceled. However, the article does not say that a reporter for "A Current Affair" was at the premiere of "Inside Man."
The paragraph in question reads:
"Reporters from Variety, 'Entertainment Tonight' and 'A Current Affair' might be expected to remain corralled behind a length of velvet rope, but at a recent premiere for "Inside Man" at the Ziegfeld Theater in Midtown, Mrs. Adams curtly rebuffed a perky film publicist who had asked her to join the salivating pack."
The first part of this sentence is written in the conditional tense; it means that at red-carpet events like the premiere, those reporters would probably stay behind the velvet rope. The second part goes on to describe what happened at this particular premiere.
Thank you for writing.
Karin Roberts
Assistant to the Metropolitan Editor
The  New York Times

How CBS News handles errors and corrections

Yesterday we published an article about the lack of a universal error correction standard in broadcast media. In the piece, we made note of CBS' PublicEye blog and its mission to bring more transparency to the news operation. We sent along a few correction/error-related questions to the PublicEye folks and they promptly responded with information from CBS News insiders. Some excerpts are below. You can read the entire post here. We have to give the PublicEye folks their due for getting back to us so quickly with some interesting information.

On handling errors in a broadcast:

Linda Mason, Senior Vice President for Standards and Special Projects at CBS News told me how the network deals with those mistakes depends largely on how substantive the error – and that is a judgment call. Mason said if an error is serious enough it is corrected on the air, as the “Evening News” recently did when it displayed the wrong picture of one of the prisoners who escaped from Gitmo. But if it is a minor factual error or “something that clarifies or puts an issue in a better context,” a note would be made on the Web site where there is more space. Mason also said that all scripts are fact-checked before airing, but noted that does not guarantee mistakes are always avoided.

Online errors:

The Web site is a place where errors made both on air and on the site can easily be corrected.  Mike Sims, director of News and Operations for CBSNews.com, says any potential error will be looked at and will receive either a “clarification” or a “correction” depending on what is warranted. Where the clarification or correction is carried, and how long it remains on the site, depends on the importance of the issue. “The visibility it gets depends on how serious it is,” said Sims, who also noted that unless an error is caught immediately, changes are always to be noted.

On creating a static corrections page on the CBS News website:

...I asked Sims and Mason about the possibility of having a “corrections page” on the Web site and both said that is something there has been plenty of discussion about. Sims said everyone is considering the issue and “trying to find the best way” to institute corrections on the site. Stay tuned, we’ll let you know if and when that discussion comes to any kind of implementation.

We look forward to it.

Sources with tall tales to tell, and why the press can't resist them

As a reporter, you're always looking for that one great source to help illuminate a story. Someone whose personal tale mimics that of larger suffering, or a greater good. A source who is the story, rather than someone who can just talk about it. This is hammered into every reporter on just about every beat -- get me someone to hang the story on. Find the perfect source to get people into the story.
The search for the perfect source is an everyday part of journalism. Rising gas prices? Don't just get a talking head from an oil company, analyst firm or NGO -- find Joe Sixpack who left his car at home all week. Even better if he owns a Hummer and knows how to give good quote.
Every story is supposed to be humanized, to speak to the average reader or viewer. And so we journalists trudge out into the streets, send out mass emails, and needle our friends, family and contacts for that one perfect source.
The press is addicted to the perfect source. And it results in some paint-by-numbers work. How many times a day do you encounter stories that begin with a single person's tale. You can almost count the words until you hit the inevitable, "Joe Sixpack is like [number] other people in [insert city/state/province] who [insert hobby/problem/etc]."
Ah, the human touch.
People like hearing about other people. All the better if it's someone they can relate to. It's a standard (albeit transparent) practice. For the most part, it does the job. But it also leaves the press open to manipulation. Some people seek to be the perfect source in order to gain some kind of benefit for themselves. Some just think they're being helpful by offering the reporter what they seem to want. Others are just liars.
So, how do journalists tell the difference?