Regret the Error

Bad for business

A photograph yesterday accompanying a story about the death of a Levittown woman who had been diagnosed with Legionnaires' disease showed the incorrect housing complex. Eleanor Squires, 81, lived in Newbridge Gardens senior housing at 55 N. Newbridge Rd. in Levittown. For a photo of the correct location, see Page A14. Link

Bad for business

In the Travel section of June 3, a story about the dangers of buying jewelry abroad included the photo of men's jewelry, shown here. The caption with the photo urged readers to check with local retailers before they travel. The photo and jewelry depicted came from Matthews Jewelers in Plantation, which has no connection to an unscrupulous Greek jewelry stone mentioned in the story. Link

NYT public editor names names

Clark Hoyt, the new public editor of the New York Times, was likely inspired by this string of name-related corrections to look into why the paper has such a problem spelling names correctly. The Times is not alone in this regard. Naming errors are among the most common factual errors in newspapers and other media. (The upcoming book from the editor of this site devotes a chapter section to misspelled names and titles.)
In this case, the usual reasons are offered in explanation: deadline pressure, reporters relying on memory, general sloppiness, misspellings in other articles used as sources etc. That's not to sound dismissive; these are common explanations. Hoyt's piece is an interesting look at the phenomenon of misspelled names in the Times, but perhaps the most intriguing part of the column is the last sentence:

How about requiring a personal letter of apology from the person responsible for an error to the person whose name is misspelled?

This probably strikes some as a strange and time consuming suggestion, but it's unorthodox and could help change behavior, which could change the culture. Hoyt also offers another excellent suggestion: "creating a database of the most commonly misspelled names, so that editors are automatically flagged when they appear in copy."
This would be a lovely innovation. It's also encouraging that Hoyt recognizes the need to offer concrete suggestions to help fix problems, rather than just cataloging them and proffering a stern finger wagging. Maybe the Times could solicit more suggestions from staff and see what other ideas pop up? Sounds like a job for the paper's internal wiki.

About a blurb

The Cooking roundup in the Book Review last Sunday, written by Amanda Hesser, included a review of Patricia Wells’s “Vegetable Harvest.” In 1999, Wells contributed a jacket blurb for Hesser’s book “The Cook and the Gardener.” The Book Review has a policy against assigning a review in those circumstances, but by the time Hesser told editors about the blurb, the issue had already gone to press. Had the editors known of the conflict, Wells’s book would not have been included. Link

UK's Independent on Sunday apologizes for stand on pot; reader's editor weighs in on when to apologize

Below is yesterday's column from the reader's editor of the Independent on Sunday. It comes in the wake of the paper's front page story of March 18, "Cannabis: An apology," in which it reversed its position in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana. This is one of those rare cases when new evidence causes a newspaper to step back from a long-held position and offer up an apology. The column below discusses why the paper did so in this case and not others. Making a belated apology (see "Trend of the Year") often elicits the question from readers: why only for this?

Sorry. Not always the hardest word for newspapers, who often say it at the bottom of columns like this after receipt of expensively printed notepaper from solicitors with menacing-sounding names. Even if you don't feel in the wrong, it is often handy to apologise rather than risk expensive legal action.
But last week's front page headed "Cannabis: an apology" was of an entirely different order. I cannot recall an occasion where a national newspaper has turned its entire lead story into a mea culpa under a banner headline. Jonathan Owen's report that 20,000 young people are hooked on the drug was powerful stuff, and many readers have applauded the IoS's decision to express regret over its former "Legalise Cannabis Campaign" in the light of new knowledge.
But the problem with apologies is that you can never go far enough for some. "Good," writes Phil Robertson from Crowthorne in Berkshire. "Now why don't you apologise for all the other things you got wrong." But where should we start? Richard Morris, a regular correspondent, has been nagging me for months over a front-page headline from last year - "Home by May", in which we predicted that large numbers of British troops would be brought home from Iraq by early summer. It didn't happen.
But I think stories like this are of a different nature from the misconceived cannabis campaign, and don't require a formal apology. Most derive from information carefully weighed up by our specialist writers, and play a part in the national political conversation of the day.
It is entirely healthy for papers to be able to shift their positions. But there is a difference between tweaks in matters of policy and backing a drug that harms people. This newspaper, for example, was originally against Ken Livingstone's congestion charge. We were wrong on that, too, as it turned out. But apologise? I think not.
Our doubts about the cannabis campaign and our concerns about the dangers the drug poses to young people were given chilling affirmation last week when cannabis addict Tom Palmer was jailed for life for murdering two school friends with a hunting knife. "Sorry" was absolutely the right word.

UPDATED: Calame comes down on NYT for math in single women story

New York Times public editor Byron Calame delivered another good column this past Sunday, this time offering a clear and necessary explanation/debunking of some fuzzy numbers in a Times story. (We say another because his December 31 column about a questionable abortion story was also an example of the kind of work that makes a powerful argument in favor of having a public editor.)
The story in question, "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse," created quite a bit of stir when it was published on January 16. As Eat The Press notes in its interesting and useful link-heavy round-up, shock-number trend stories like this are "instantly picked up all over the place, repackaged on front-pages throughout the country, repeated on news and talk shows, hashed over in the blogosphere." These stories are news that make news. So it's essential that the math be solid.
It's an oft-repeated maxim that journalists are bad at math. Sometimes, we simply take numbers offered to us and reprint them without taking a second look. Sometimes, we introduce errors through poor math or other mistakes. And sometimes, as it seems in this case, we use numbers that appear to make a better/more interesting story and fail to offer a full explanation of the logic and limitations of said numbers. People who read the fine print on this piece were surprised by what they found. As a result, they questioned the overall conclusions of the article. A little disclosure goes a long way. Calame does a good job investigating how the questionable numbers came to be printed and not fully explained, and he also includes details about how the Times plans to avoid this in the future:

In the wake of this controversy, Bill Keller, the executive editor, has decided to meet with staffers with expertise in statistics and demographics to create a “vetting network to help with the editing of articles dealing with those subjects,” Craig R. Whitney, an assistant managing editor and the standards editor, said Thursday.

That's good news. One more recommendation: introduce a math-related training program for staffers in order to increase the overall level of numeracy in the newsroom.

For those interested, go here and here to read some of the many math/numbers errors we've collected. UPDATE Feb 14: The times published this correction to the story today:

A front-page article and chart on Jan. 16 about the rising number of women in the United States living without spouses referred imprecisely to ages of the women included in the Census Bureau survey that was the basis of the finding. The women were 15 and older, not over 15.

UPDATE Feb 18: Here's a clarification published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Feb 18:

The Sunday @issue section on Jan. 28 featured a number of articles on the state of marriage, including pieces by a single man and a single woman about why they live without a mate.
The suggestion that marriage is in trouble --- or at least in transition --- resonated with readers, who stormed a forum on ajc.com to talk about the advantages and liabilities of being married.
But the basis of the articles --- what we in the business call the news peg --- was a New York Times story reporting that, for the first time, more women are living without a husband than with one.
That story was misleading. In crunching census data for the story, the newspaper included girls aged 15 through 17 as living without a husband. About 90 percent of these "women" live with their parents.
Times' Public Editor Byron Calame last week calculated that, among women 18 and older, 48 percent are living without a spouse.
That number is still high, but it hasn't crossed the 50 percent threshold that prompted the story in the first place.

 

2006 correction tallies begin to roll in

From the Star Tribune's article:

...By the end of 2006, the Star Tribune had published 613 corrections and clarifications.
It's easy to analyze away the import of that number. After all, it comes down to fewer than two corrections a day in a large publication created from the ground up on deadline. It's only two more corrections than we published in 2005.
Plus, a good slice of those corrections involved source errors, where a reporter interviewed someone who misspoke or didn't have his or her facts straight. Generally we just print a correction that doesn't identify the source of the bad information, assuming readers don't really care about the background and just want the right information.
While the number of errors in the Star Tribune is in line with the totals for newspapers of similar size, it nags at me this time of year when I tote up the numbers.
I worked with Managing Editor Scott Gillespie last year to analyze the types of errors occurring and it became clear that usually they aren't complicated, they're brain burps by someone working fast, often someone who knew the correct information or easily could have checked.
A majority of the errors involved such things as name spellings, e-mail addresses, historic events or records, math, whether a picture matched the name in the caption, whether the country was marked correctly on a map...

From Rocky Mountain News editor John Temple:

Our annual error report shows that in 2006 we published 532 corrections, down 8 percent from our total of 577 in 2005. This was the lowest number of corrections since 2003, when the Rocky published 456.
Accuracy, of course, is a fundamental building block of the kind of newspaper we want to be. But so is the willingness to correct our mistakes. That's why I'm not necessarily concerned that we published more corrections in '06 than we did in '03, because I think it's indicative that our process is better...
The biggest single number of corrections occurs because of reporter error. That's to be expected. There can be misunderstandings in the gathering of news that editors do not detect...
Our top five types of errors were basic reporting, 141; misspelled names, 45; wrong names, 35; editors introducing mistakes, 25; and, believe it or not, wrong dates, 23...

From the Yakima Herald Republic:

...In 2006, we published 275 corrections and clarifications, down from the 287 we published in 2005 and the 279 we published in 2004.
For last year, that works out to roughly three published corrections or clarifications for every four days.
Our goal of no corrections at all is unrealistic; we simply handle far too much information from far too many sources.
That makes it even more important that we maintain our goal of correcting information we get wrong, for whatever reason...  

Salt Lake Trib headline typos lose, dunk readers

Connie Coyne, the Salt Lake Tribune's reader's editor, took an amusing look at a couple of typos in the paper:

We had our problems with headlines this week, according to readers. Some folks found fault with a news story headline, as did this reader:
"I found it both sad and humorous that the title of the article 'Utah risks loosing its best teachers' had such an awkward misspelling in it. I agree with the points made by the author of the article wholeheartedly, but the editor (presumably) did a disservice in titling it."
Or this reader:
"I hope that the writer did not spell 'loose' or I would say he might not be one of the best teachers. Utah risks losing its best teachers. Or they may be let loose to try other careers."
There certainly is a big difference between loosing something and losing it. The article talked about the prospect of losing teachers, not letting them loose. Thanks for having such sharp eyes.
Several callers left voice messages that mentioned a headline over the celebrity news at the top of page A2 on Wednesday. Over a small story about Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner baptizing their daughter Violet were the words "Baby dunked."
In this country we may dunk for apples and dunk donuts, but we don't dunk babies because that would be child abuse. Usually in the Methodist Church, where the ceremony was carried out, water is sprinkled on the child's head.
Certainly writing a small headline above a tiny story is a challenge, but we can do better than "Baby dunked."

An early correction tally; the loss of proofreaders

The readers advocate of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote his latest column about errors and included some correction tallies:

We were doing so well.
In November, the Star-Telegram had published 36 corrections, a record low compared with the previous five Novembers (51 in 2005, 49 in 2004, 70 in 2003, 47 in 2002 and 57 in 2001).
December's correction count is growing slowly, but a couple of errors this month were hair-pulling tumbles from the wagon -- not that all errors aren't, but these were basic lapses that leave staffers and readers blinking in disbelief and are worth noting for at least a couple of reasons.
Granted, we publish millions of accurate facts, but the errors were good reminders of how inaccuracy can dampen credibility.
Plus, the errors' timing coincided with an invitation to readers from Executive Editor Jim Witt to volunteer for a reader panel that will help shape an overhaul of the Star-Telegram.

He also laments the loss of proofreaders:

...One reader asked his favorite question whenever he reports an error: "Doesn't anyone edit this stuff?"
Yes, but we're missing a human remedy from the Stone Age that would erect a mighty backup defense against errors that no computer program or harried staffer on deadline could match: proofreaders, those wonderful thinkers, grammarians, spellers and widely read all-around trivia experts from yesteryear.
Their roles were absorbed by technology and loaded onto copy editors, and we've paid the price in inaccuracies ever since. Probably the worst idea to hit the newspaper industry (other than public ownership) was the elimination of proofreaders.
Perhaps there's a 21st-century generation of proofreaders on the way. Perhaps not.
Either way, the accuracy burden remains, and the weight of our credibility often rests on whether simple facts are reported correctly.
When we write, as we did recently, that a man fell 15 feet from a 6-foot ladder, we hear from readers who echo a Lockheed Martin retiree. "In my business," he complained, "error was not an option."

Right of reply for sources

Byron Calame, public editor of the New York Times, focused yesterday's column on what he sees as a possible rise in the number of Times stories being published without proper (or fair) sourcing. This has in turn resulted in a rise in Editor's Notes explaining and apologizing for the lapses.
"Seeking comment from those written about, especially when they are put in an unfavorable light, is a particularly important aspect of fair coverage," he writes. "It helps ensure that readers get the most complete and accurate view possible of a newsworthy development. Unfortunately, The Times has had too many cases recently where subjects weren’t given a chance to comment, or the attempt to reach them was insufficient."
Calame cites a few examples and then shares some interesting research. "I searched all Editors’ Notes in the paper starting in 1994 for reports of instances where a fair chance to comment hadn’t been provided," he writes. "...I found indications, though not firm evidence, that The Times has fumbled this vital aspect of fairness more frequently in the past three years than it did in the previous decade. The average was roughly one such note a year through 2003. Since then, however, the number has been rising: three in 2004, four in 2005 and seven so far this year."
He notes that the perceived increase could be a result of the paper's "greater transparency and openness to reader complaints" and/or "the pressure to serve the growing appetite of the Web version of the paper for fresh stories, as well as video and audio reports."
We're often asked if we think the level of accuracy in the press is getting better or worse. It's a difficult question to answer, but one thing we note is that the mainstream press today probably gets away with less errors. There is increased scrutiny and people can easily fact check reporting, often in a matter of seconds. As a result, we tend to be more suspicious of a media outlet that runs very few, rather than very many, corrections.
So, perhaps some of these omitted sources are just faster to notice and act on their exclusion than they were in the past. Not that that diminishes Calame's point. (In fact, it makes one wonder how many still slip through.) This problem is even less excusable today in light of the easy availability of email addresses, land line and cell phone numbers and other forms of contact information. Just as the mistake is easier to spot, it's also easier to prevent.
The bottom line is that not trying to contact such an important and necessary source is an unacceptable oversight, and a reporter from the Times expresses that very clearly at the end of the column. Like preventing errors, this requires constant vigilance mixed with effective training and some good old common sense.
"The need for comment is sometimes painfully obvious," writes Calame. Reinforcing this basic practice is one way to ensure fairness in reporting and help prevent embarrassing Editor's Notes and corrections.
The Times is by no means alone in this; for example, check out this recent similar (and serious) lapse by the Los Angeles Times.