CORRECTIONS
One of my former editors had only three words in his journalism bible: Accuracy. Accuracy. Accuracy.
Getting a fact or figure wrong in a news article is a mortal sin, requiring penance of the most excruciating kind. At least that was so in my past life when error-prone journalists were publicly shamed on the notice board, made to work weekends or risk getting their bonuses cut. Weekly and monthly error figures were sent out. An editor would grill the errant journalist asking ‘how did this happen’? But seriously, can anyone explain away ‘carelessness’ , which is usually the cause?
For most journalists, the terror of an error is enough for them to not just to confirm facts but double confirm them. I remember measures like making the journalist underline facts in copy or put in brackets which indicate that they had been double checked.
This isn’t as rigorous as it sounds because it’s ownself-check- ownself most of the time – unless others in the editing food chain take it on themselves to do the fact checking because something just ‘doesn’t seem right’.
The better-resourced newsrooms elsewhere actually have an army of fact checkers who even call up newsmakers to ascertain that they had indeed been interviewed.
The primacy of accuracy in journalism is easy to understand – and just as easily dismissed as nitpicking. Perfection is asked for because the media depend on readers’ trust. If the media outlet keeps getting things wrong, it can’t be relied on to inform readers. This matters whether the mistake is a big one or a little one. Spell someone’s name wrong and he might forgive you – but he won’t forget it. And people who know him will simply wonder at the tardiness of the journalist.
Of course, a journalist can ‘get away’ with mistakes, especially if the newsmaker is forgiving enough not to ask for a correction. In this regard, the print journalist is more stressed than the broadcast journalist and online journalist. Broadcast is fleeting and can be corrected at the next broadcast. Online can be corrected quickly, surreptitiously and multiple times. Print has the error carved in stone, so to speak. Which is a reason for the apology attached to “what it should have been”.
But there are mistakes and there are…clarifications.
An apology means the media outlet acknowledges that it is to blame. A clarification is made usually because the newsmaker misspoke or his words could be misunderstood. And the newsmaker complained. So the words clarification would be in the correction – sans apology.
Sometimes, the error could be a simple thing like forgetting a ‘senior’ before ‘vice-President’ in a person’s designation. If so, the newsmaker may be satisfied with a quick ‘update’ – without the error or clarification being flagged. In the old days, when there was only print and no Internet, any journalist checking up old stories would see a note about the clarification so as not to repeat the ‘mistake’ of downgrading the newsmaker.
Online journalism has made life easier for newsmakers and journalists – at the expense of the principle of accountability and transparency, and the interests of the reader
My bet is that this phenomenon of online ‘updates’, which used to be about adding new information, is becoming more common as a way of correcting information or even quotes and views.
Some newsmakers will insist that errors in online copy be flagged, rather like POFMA. So you see both the error and correction/clarification.
But some newsmakers just don’t like what they read about themselves. Some had a re-think about what they said and want to ‘take them back’. Some think they themselves are professional journalists and want changes to angle or perspective.
Editors who just want peace and quiet will be tempted to make changes according to the newsmaker’s desires. It saves arguing over the phone or having lengthy email exchanges. After all, do the change fast enough and no one (or very few people) will notice. Right?
For print, editors will resist changes as much as possible because a correction or clarification is flagged for all to see at the expense of its own reputation. It’s just plain embarrassing. Print-only journalists have to get it right the first time.
But a tweak here and there or a paragraph deleted online? Whether about a wrong fact or because it’s merely irritating or impolitic? How would a reader know unless he has read the earlier version? Do you think the reader who read the earlier version is likely to re-read the piece? As for the reader who actually read both versions, what is he to think except that some kind of cover-up had taken place?
As I have raised before in past columns: Do readers care? Or is this the business of the newsmakers who are featured in the offending story? We can laugh away some errors as a joke, like misspelling public sector. But too many mistakes and you wonder if it’s a tragi-comedy you’re being exposed to.
Which brings me to my last point: Media outlets should articulate their policy on errors, especially with online content being all the rage. How, for example, do they alert readers to mistakes? In the early days of online journalism, the habit was to strike out (as in put a line through) the mistaken word or phrase and then give the right info in brackets right after.
When, for example, will the media find it necessary to institute a disciplinary inquiry into terribly egregious mistakes or, gulp, fake news? And should the results of investigations remain ‘private’ when the mistake is so ‘public’?
Some people think name, shame and blame is too drastic an action . I am traditional enough to think that some self-flagellation is in order to maintain public confidence. There will be red faces for sure but it also shows the premium placed on maintaining readers’ trust.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
See insights
Like
Comment
Share
Bertha Harian 