In a post yesterday headlined Rarely Regretting the Errors, I discussed new research showing that the newspaper industry only corrects about 2 percent of the actual errors that make it into print, and wondered why newspapers don't implement one of the many "quality management" methods other industries use to reduce errors and improve quality, such as management guru W. Edwards Deming's Total Quality Management.
Craig Silverman, editor of RegretTheError.com and a Montreal-based columnist for Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, emails:
I saw your post about applying quality control to newsrooms and wanted to follow up because I looked into the possibility of this for my upcoming book. The short answer, after talking with a few quality experts in the US, is that it can be done. There are already quality control practices used for technical documentation, and the process-oriented nature of print newsrooms (copy is written, then passed form editor to editor and then to production) is well-suited to applying quality principles. I'm not aware of any news organization that has worked to apply quality control principles to its operations, but I agree wholeheartedly that it can should be done. I think it could have a demonstrable effect on accuracy and the overall quality of reporting. So I'm really glad to see you raise the idea.
Also, if you're looking for an example of the errors and corrections blog you mention, I suggest you take a look at what Reuters has done with its Good, Bad & Ugly blog: http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu
They don't post every error, but I think it's a great project.
Silverman's forthcoming book, Regret the Error: How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech, is scheduled to be published November 1 by Union Square Press.
—Bill Hobbs is author of Who Is Fred Thompson, a blog-centric look at the presidential candidate.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
In an age of email
August 17, 2007 - 13:28 ET by sarcasmoThe errors shouldn't ever exist to be corrected in the first place. What's WRONG with letting your sources, who usually have years of experience in a business you're trying to learn about for the first time, have a look at a rough draft of what you've written? What?? If you're clueless, we might say-so, and offer suggestions that would help readers draw more factual and less-imaginative conclusions, but isn't accuracy what you people claim you want??? What gives???
And I KNOW some people at journalism schools, including faculty, look at this blog. Please, you've never answered this question and I just keep-on asking it: What's wrong with consulting the clueful on a rough draft??? We can't erase your wonderous journalistic imaginations, but isn't it better to get FACTUAL information instead of mistakes to your readers? How can I magically take control of your words and your mind and your keyboard by making a suggestion you disagree with or dislike?? Why is cluelessness considered more ethical than fact-checking????
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
"What gives" is that the
August 17, 2007 - 13:36 ET by Beowulf"What gives" is that the MSM constantly injects politics into their product. This causes the same unreliability inherent in anything involving politics, which by its very nature, is biased.
Another misconception here is that these "errors" are mistakes. Some surely are, but I believe that many, if not the majority, are intentional and are meant to influence people and create a pre-disposition of agreement with the media.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
It's ego, sarky
August 17, 2007 - 13:37 ET by RJ"Journalists" believe they're elites. Therefore, their **** can't possibly stink....no need to check it.....
I'd like to believe that, but...
August 17, 2007 - 13:45 ET by sarcasmoEveryone tells me I have a HUGE ego, and as an egotistical journalist, I'd want to email my source and let him/her proofread my stuff, especially if clearly she/he knows more about the subject I'm trying to sound like I know.
As a person with an ego of at least some size (or I could not play poker/chess very well) I can't believe this is the only reason. When I've questioned journalists who've done this to me in person, they've always talked about "ethics," so it's got something to do with "ethics" which apparently trumps accuracy, but I can't explain it, because I still don't understand it myself.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Ah, but sarky...
August 17, 2007 - 13:54 ET by RJyou have the ego part, but you don't have the first part of the equation....you don't think you're an "elite."
"Ethics", of course, is something elites have...but, being one of the great unwashed readership, you can't be expected to understand...
Why this is...
August 17, 2007 - 13:59 ET by mattmErrors are inherent in journalism. Journalists are humans and are therefore prone to error. This is why the pretense of objectivity is the strongest indicator of bias.
However, there is a huge difference between errors and deliberate slanting, suppressing, overemphasizing, ommission of facts etc... That goes beyond simple mistakes and into the realm of deceit.
That is true, but also
August 17, 2007 - 14:08 ET by general companyindustry only corrects about 2 percent of the actual errors that make it into print, and wondered why newspapers don't implement one of the many "quality management" methods other industries use to reduce errors and improve quality,
Considering how they rip anyone else for missing flawed items you would think these folks would feel an obligation to get it right?
Quality or editorial control?
August 17, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Hero SquadMost reporters and editors will never agree to allow their sources review their work beforehand. It's perceived as relinquishing editorial control of the content when the subject can make revisions. TQM, Six Sigma, Baldridge, etc... it'd be tough to get that flowing in a newsroom where turnaround has to be quick.
In some instances, I can agree with it. If I was covering a local government meeting and an official says something foolish and pertinent, I'm not about to give him an opportunity to clean up his quote.
But if I'm interviewing, say, a doctor, about a new medical procedure he is performing, I don't see any problem in letting them take a look at the article, or at least the portion of the article related to him.
However, since editors will not be inclined to allow such precedent to be set, I don't see this ever being changed.
I currently write a medical publication where the articles are exhaustively reviewed by everyone involved in the stories and then some. Factually the articles are about as strong as they can be, but even then, an error or two can still slip through the cracks. Fortunately, they are usually minor, and I at least go to press with the confidence that the articles have been thoroughly vetted.
But sometimes, too many cooks...
They've said that in our talking matches over the phone, but...
August 17, 2007 - 13:51 ET by sarcasmoWhy am I assumed to be such a damned-effective advocate (especially with how much big-government has grown in my lifetime as a libertarian, you might call me the biggest failure here!)??? I may wish for it, but I can't magically take editorial control by saying something like, "that's not as accurate as putting it this way," and then GIVING THE REPORTER A CHOICE (as if I had the choice to give) of totally ignoring me and saying to him/her self, "Oh, sarcasmo's just being biased or trying to make me slant my story for some nefarious reason that has nothing to do with accuracy!" It's this offensive assumption that honest sources are anti-accuracy!! :(
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
journalistic quality control
August 17, 2007 - 14:12 ET by Bill HobbsOne of the problems with journalism today, I believe, is that too many people who work as journalists got their degree in journalism, and have no real understanding of the things they cover. A business journalist with no training in business, a medical reporter with no education past high school in science, etc.
What is needed is a complete revamp of journalism programs in academia so that the journalism student is forced to get an education in something else in addition to learning the craft of gathering news, writing, editing, publication design and mass comm law.
One of the best business reporters I've ever seen here in Nashville had a background as a stock broker before he went into journalism. He understood what he was writing about, so he made far fewer errors.