Flames engulfed the phone conversation.
“I don’t know why I’ve put up with you for so long,” she snapped. “All these years, and all you do is lie.”
Lying?
“Every day, you lie.”
How? About what?
“Everything. Why don’t you try telling the truth for once?”
(She slams down the receiver.)
This was an angry longtime subscriber. And she wasn’t interested in providing details.
Nevertheless, I could respect her point.
Smart readers and smart journalists share a common characteristic: They’re skeptical of the information in front of them.
Elements such as careful research, trustworthy sourcing and clear writing may boost the credibility of content, but I doubt that the story has been written that hasn’t left some readers and writers questioning the veracity of some of the facts. Credibility then becomes an issue.
Ultimately, in the newspaper industry, the issue of credibility rests on the messenger’s shoulders.
It’s up to the messenger to ensure accurate information for readers if a healthy degree of their trust is to be earned. The Star-Telegram takes that responsibility seriously.
Our efforts in that regard can be invisible to many readers — until we publish corrections or clarifications.
In 2002, we published 658 corrections and clarifications, according to our library, which tracks that information.
The items were easy to find. Our policy is to publish them on the cover of the section in which the faulty information occurred, including Page One.
We publish them for many reasons, but mainly because we know that our credibility is all we have, and it’s at stake in everything we do. When we know we’ve made a mistake, we say so.
Some readers question whether we really believe that. We gave them 658 reasons last year to think otherwise.
Wherever you find a newspaper that values professionalism and ethical performance, you will encounter the publication of corrections and clarifications — and a willingness to talk about them.
For instance, Chicago Tribune Public Editor Don Wycliff says in a column that the Trib published 678 corrections and clarifications last year.
Boston Globe Ombudsman Christine Chinlund writes that 901 corrections, clarifications, omissions and editor’s notes were published there during ’02. She adds that a good number of errors originated in the Globe’s 800 stories on abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.
No such single source can be found to account for a notable percentage of the Star-Telegram’s errors. Every department suffered errors at one time or another for various reasons.
The highest number, 70, occurred in October. The fewest number, 43, occurred in June.
It’s safe to say that whenever a human writer places fingertips on a keyboard, lots of things can happen, and they’re not all good.
We have systems in place to guard against errors, including the Star-Telegram Accuracy Checklist.
Everyone who either originates or handles news copy is supposed to have a copy beside them for constant reference.
The list carries 13 bulleted checks to apply. They include questions such as:
“Have we double-checked all names, titles and places in the story?”
“Are all quotes accurate, properly attributed and in context?”
“Is the story fair?”
“Is the tone of the story appropriate?”
“Are there unattributed statements or characterizations that should be attributed or simply deleted?”
Ideally, every single bit of news and information would pass the checklist’s scrutiny, and perfection would be achieved.
Why can’t that happen?
I think that, deep down, no one wants perfection out of anything.
In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need some of life’s greatest gifts like nurses, certified auto mechanics, blues musicians, newspapers — and angry readers.
