Readers have long memories when it comes to bad experiences with newspapers. I don’t blame them.
The New York Times debacle has made one thing clear: Many people believe the Jayson Blair affair represents only an extreme example of a common occurrence. From their point of view, the media often get it wrong and care little about correcting their mistakes.
A national press group surveyed readers last week about whether they knew about mistakes in their local newspaper and whether the paper responded to inquiries about those errors.
“Why waste the time?” asked an Arizona reader.
“What’s the point? — Do they really care?” was how a Maryland woman responded.
A reader from Spokane, Wash., said he doesn’t call in corrections because he believes newspapers have an “arrogant indifference to detail.”
It doesn’t get more damning than that for newspapers.
I sent the same survey questions to a group of Akron Beacon Journal readers. Their responses reflected a fairly strong belief in the general accuracy of this newspaper, but also a perception that the media in general won’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Don Parsisson of Akron said he’s still reluctant to talk to a reporter about a serious topic even though it has been years since another paper took his words out of the proper context.
“The reporter gave it a `spin’ that suited the needs of the feature,” he said. “As a result, it appeared that I said or felt things that weren’t really true.” Saying his words were “sound bitten,” Parsisson still is soured by the experience. “Those few words can be made to express views not necessarily held by the speaker.”
As public editor, I’ve heard this complaint before. While there is no excuse for intentionally taking quotes out of context, what happens more often is a gap in the communications process.
Reporters routinely boil down interviews into a few sentences, or even one key quote. From the reporter’s view, it’s the most interesting, most provocative or most essential piece of information. From the person’s view, that quote loses meaning without the sentence before and the sentence after.
Another often-heard complaint involves the location of the corrections on Page A2.
Karen Hartley finds the paper responsive to her requests for corrections, but the Mogadore minister believes a Page A2 correction lacks the impact of the original story with its bold headline and full-color photo.
“Yes, it is corrected, but not in the same way the original article caught my attention,” she said. In addition, “the correction is usually out of context of the article.”
That reminded me of a recent e-mail from Akron reader Frank Mitch, who said some corrections confuse rather than clarify.
“Very often the `Corrections’ leave us guessing as to the nature of the original error. Why not come right out and tell us what was wrong?”
That’s because of the paper’s policy of not wanting to repeat inaccurate information. It serves little purpose and might even reinforce the error in the reader’s mind.
Still, I’ll agree corrections shouldn’t leave you puzzled. Trying to set the record straight shouldn’t throw you for a curve.
Mitch continued: “No need to tell us an editor erred. Just openly admit your mistakes and tell us clearly what was wrong with no excuses.”
Explaining how the error happened is the paper’s way of admitting its mistakes. It’s also the paper’s way of showing you that sometimes incorrect information comes from others.
However, it can appear that the paper is making excuses. As one reader wrote, “I always get the impression that the person who writes the corrections is a snippy, small-minded tattletale who is far more interested in placing blame than in clarifying the facts.”
In reality, corrections are written by many, with reporters or their editors expected to explain their own mistakes. The paper’s corrections line — 330-996-3016 — gets heavy use. Finally, my number is a good one to dial when you see something troubling.
Maybe if more people had dialed up the New York Times, Jayson Blair’s journalistic fraud wouldn’t have developed into such a colossal mess.
It’s like Akron reader Stephen Brand said this week: Correcting a newspaper mistake is “like dropping a raw egg on the floor. Cleaning it up is a nightmare.”
Brand urged an “iron-clad system that follows up on details to make sure the facts are correct, especially when the information could hurt someone significantly.”
That’s good advice, and certainly preferable to spilling egg on the floor or getting it all over your face.
