How much do journalists hate to get something wrong? I share a true story as an illustrative answer to that question.
Once upon a telecommuting time, I had a 3 a.m. wakeup call from my unconscious state. The thought laser-ed through deep sleep: Did I get that part of the story right?
Instantly awake, I bolted out of bed, agonized for about five seconds about what to do, tossed on some clothes, ignored the groggy pleas from my then-husband to quit driving myself crazy with this stuff, and sped off to check my work to see if I’d made a big boner in print. I had to know. Couldn’t wait another five hours until the day really began.
Well, that morning I was off the hook. I had done the requisite checking and double-checking. I drove home and was back in bed by 4. Everything was OK. That time. But, oh, there have been other mornings . . .
I tell that story for a reason (and not to parade my issues with control and disengagement): Journalists hate to be wrong.
But just as sure as the sun is going to shine, we’re going to get something wrong in a story or a graphic or a photo caption. As hard as we try not to. As much double-checking as we do. As careful as we are about backstopping each other with editing and proofing.
We print what amounts to a book every day — that’s a newspaper — and some days we’re going to get something wrong. And so we print corrections, too.
Last year, The Courier-Journal printed 450 corrections and 33 clarifications, down slightly from 2001′s totals of 463 corrections and 30 clarifications.
We take this very seriously.
If accuracy is important to readers — and we know it is — it is just as important to us.
That’s why we have dedicated a place on Page A2 of The Courier-Journal to print most of our corrections to news, features, sports and business content. (Some exceptions: Editorial, letters and op-ed errors are corrected on the opinion pages; Neighborhoods section corrections run in those weekly sections, as do those for Indiana Weekly.)
That’s why my name and phone number are printed in the index that appears in the daily main news section.
That’s why we print the e-mail addresses of reporters in their bylines, and why we print contact information for section editors at the tops of the front pages of their sections.
That’s why editors, reporters, artists, photographers and others who make an error in print are required to complete a form that includes the name of the person who made the error and the reason for the correction (examples: reporter error and why that occurred; or wrong information provided to the newspaper; or a mistake made in editing). These forms, and a copy of the printed correction, are tracked and kept on file.
That’s why every Friday, after the morning news meeting, editors — who are accountable for what goes in their sections — read the week’s corrections that pertain to them and their staffs, explain how the error occurred and what will be done to prevent a similar error from occurring again.
The reason for this sometimes excruciating exercise: Credibility.
You can’t buy it. You have to earn it. And in newspapers, it’s our gold standard. And we have to earn it, and abide by it, every day.
The paradox about corrections is that they apparently don’t undermine credibility among readers. The lack of corrections does that.
From Robert Haiman, author of the Freedom Forum’s Best Practices for Newspaper Journalists about how the public sees corrections:
“They say they understand that reporters have to work very hard and fast under pressure, and they acknowledge that is not a system likely to produce perfection. . . . But they do not believe this should exempt the newspaper from cleaning up its messes promptly and fully,” Haiman wrote.
“Seeing as many errors as they do, the public would like to see many more corrections and clarifications. Not one member of the public in any of our roundtables said he or she thought seeing many more corrections would diminish the credibility of the newspaper. Most said it would make them less skeptical and the paper more believable. This is validated by national surveys in which up to 63 percent of people polled say that seeing corrections make them feel feel better about the newspaper.”
So let us continue to hear from you about what you see in the newspaper. We may not always agree on what merits a correction, but we appreciate that you care about what you read and that you expect us to do our jobs well every day.
(And while we’re on the subject . . . In a recent column, I had a typographical error in one mention of reporter Sheldon Shafer’s name. Though I could give you a couple of reasons why that happened, the fact is there’s no excuse. Sorry, Sheldon. Sorry, readers.)
Where were the women? In the Jan. 6 special section that looked ahead to Metro Louisville’s future, some features also took a look at its past.
Columnist Bob Hill — a good journalist and an enlightened man — compiled a list of the 16 most notable and influential people in Louisville-Jefferson County history.
As much as I enjoyed reading about the folks who were highlighted, I couldn’t help but notice that only one of the people was also a woman. That bothered Bob, too. (I know. I asked him about it.)
So here’s my assignment for you today: Let’s come up with some names and histories of notable women in the history of Louisville-Jefferson County, and I’ll try to work up a list in time for Women’s History Month, which is March.
Let me hear from you with suggestions. Contact info is at the bottom of this column.
A Question for the Chief? One of the new things we’ll do this year is provide opportunities on the www.courier-journal.com Web site for the reader to ask questions of those who make the news and those who report the news.
I’ll have more details about this in next week’s column, but I’m pleased to give you a heads up about our first guest this year:
Robert White, Louisville-Jefferson County’s new police chief, will be online at The C-J’s Web site from 5 to 6 p.m. Jan. 29 to answer your questions.
More to come in next week’s column.
