When I worked on The Spartan Daily at San Jose State University in the 1960s, the daily critique by adviser Irene Epstein included a recap of errors. She would enter a “red X” on a chart beside the name of any student whose story had a mistake. That was the low point of the day for future journalists whose carelessness appeared in print.
There’s no “red X chart” in The San Diego Union-Tribune newsroom and no formal newsroom-wide critique, but errors remain a source of distress, not only because staff members are held accountable for mistakes but because no newsroom pro relishes being wrong in print.
Correcting mistakes for the record has been a focus of my work ever since I became readers representative in 1992.
Years ago, corrections were a rarity. It’s not that errors did not occur, but newspapers were less willing to acknowledge in print that the newspaper had made a mistake. Now, many newspapers correct their errors as promptly as possible as a matter of policy. Although some readers look upon corrections as yet another example of poor reporting (and in some cases they are), newspapers understand their credibility hinges on acknowledging when they have misled or misinformed readers.
On the very day The New York Times carried a front-page story about winning a record seven Pulitzer Prizes, its Page 2 carried four corrections. The following day, six corrections appeared. The point is that newspapers everywhere, even the much admired Times, make errors. But many publications don’t stop there. They correct them.
Unlike some newspapers, where the decision on corrections is left to editors, the Union-Tribune puts the responsibility for correcting errors in the hands of the ombudsman, or readers representative. I have no way of knowing for certain, but I suspect this newspaper and others that have ombudsmen (even if they are not responsible for corrections) probably are more diligent about correcting errors than most of those who do not.
Before the Union-Tribune library became computerized in December 1983, copies of corrections were clipped from the Union and the Tribune, which merged in 1992. Now, they are entered in the computerized archives. When a staff members calls up a story that has been corrected, he or she will see the corrected information attached to the top of the story. The idea is to make it hard to miss so the error will not be perpetuated.
But before computers, things were different. Corrections were clipped on to the original story, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some got lost or removed by accident.
To check the frequency of corrections before computers, I asked library researcher Tom Stinson to pull the clips. He returned with seven envelopes containing corrections for the years 1958 to December 1983.
All of the corrections for both newspapers between 1958 and 1973 a 15-year period fit into one envelope. It wasn’t exactly bulging.
Combined, the two newspapers carried seven corrections in 1960, 19 a decade later. In 1980, at least 179 corrections appeared. In 2000, the number of corrections for the Union-Tribune had soared to 644. For 2001, the total was 624.
I don’t think today’s Union-Tribune is making more errors than its predecessors did decades ago. It’s just that correcting errors both big and small is a priority. The bigger priority is not to make mistakes to begin with.
Having done the corrections and clarifications for the last decade, I know that staff members are not responsible for every single error that gets into print. Sometimes, the source provides bad information and corrections are printed for the benefit of readers who rely on the newspaper for accurate information.
Errors that could not have been detected by the reporter a spokesman gives the wrong date for a concert he or she is putting on, for example are blamed on the source. Reporters, whose name appear on articles, do not want their readers to think they are sloppy about accuracy.
As the person responsible for corrections, I rely on reporters and editors to let me know when a mistake has been made. But more often than not, it’s readers who alert me to errors. Often they are correct in saying the newspaper has erred. It always surprises me how much about so many things readers know. I learn a lot from them.
But readers aren’t always right, as I’ve learned when I’ve gone back to the reporter to determine whether an error as been made. A few weeks ago, a reader called to report what she and I were sure was an error. The reporter had used John Henry rather than John Hancock as a synonym for signature.
References proved us wrong. The Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins acknowledges that John Hancock is synonymous with “signature” but explained in the West “the phrase became altered to John Henry and nobody knows quite why.”
