So far in 2008, The Kansas City Star has published 262 corrections. That’s versus 315 this time last year.
Clearly, that’s a great trend and a continuation of one that started last year, when the tally ended up at 480. That was down significantly from three years when the numbers ran extremely close: 581 in 2006, 579 in 2005, and 584 in 2004.
But the figures are only part of the story. There’s a huge variety in the kinds of corrections The Star prints. One could argue that some verge on too trivial, like one correcting a July 1 story’s reference to the humanitarian organization Children International as “Children’s International.” I doubt the extra apostrophe-S really confused too many people and I know I’ve let other similar details go by without a correction.
That’s the small beans. Then there are mistakes of real substance, like the July 7 Page A1 story on the size of seats at the new Sprint Center. The story said one-fourth of the arena’s seats are smaller than many other recently-built venues’ but it turns out the comparison was partly apples and oranges. Dimensions from the Sprint Center were measured differently from how some other arenas calculated theirs.
Here, editors decided the mistake merited more than just an A2 correction. So in addition, they ran a box on July 27′s A1, pointing readers to a separate story explaining how the error happened on B1.
Overkill? I don’t think so, especially considering that the original story was a centerpiece with a large photo illustration and graphic.
As I’ve written many times before, credibility is of paramount importance to all journalists, whether they work for a newspaper, TV, radio or the Web. Readers have to believe that reporters, photographers and editors want to set the record straight when they get it wrong.
Clearly, nobody likes making a mistake, and I never relish telling a reporter about an error that’s been sent my way. But the corrections column serves a vital purpose fixing false information, but also demonstrating that the paper includes itself in its watchdog role for the public. Nobody is infallible, so reaction to an inaccuracy is proof of a news organization’s mettle.
Really a free ride’?
A caller objected to a sentence in a story Wednesday about Nick Jordan, who won 76 percent of the vote in the primary for Kansas’ 3rd U.S. House District. The story said Jordan “got a free ride in the primary.”
“It makes it sound like he didn’t even have to campaign, like he was running unopposed,” said the reader. “I think that term sounds very disparaging, regardless of who it’s applied to. I’ve always thought of a free ride’ going to someone who grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth, but here he had an opponent, Paul Showen, who could have possibly won.”
I can see his point here. The reader’s advice: “Just say he won, and say what the margin was. Don’t make the language flowery because it sounds like bias.”
