A soon to be released study by the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication will report that almost half of the articles published by America's daily newspapers contain one or more factual errors, and that less than two percent end up being corrected.
Of course, as Glenn Reynolds wrote of this news, "This research won't surprise many blog-readers."
Maybe so, but regardless of one's view of media, the numbers reported by Slate Wednesday are nonetheless shocking (emphasis added):
The average newspaper should expand by a factor of 50 the amount of space given to corrections if Scott R. Maier's research is any guide.
[...]
The results might shock even the most jaded of newspaper readers. About 69 percent of the 3,600 news sources completed the survey, and they spotted 2,615 factual errors in 1,220 stories. That means that about half of the stories for which a survey was completed contained one or more errors. Just 23 of the flawed stories-less than 2 percent-generated newspaper corrections. No paper corrected more than 4.2 percent of its flawed articles.
Obviously, a newspaper can't publish a correction until it learns of its error. But the studied dailies performed poorly when informed of their goofs. Maier found that 130 of the news sources reported having asked for corrections, but their complaints elicited only four corrections.
How disgraceful. Name one industry that is allowed to make errors 50 percent of the time and correct them less than two percent.
I'd be out of business if I operated my company so incompetently, and would have a long line of attorneys looking to sue me. How 'bout you?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How can I even be sure this
August 17, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Hero SquadHow can I even be sure this Slate report is factually accurate?
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess." - Steve Martin
* Because......
August 17, 2007 - 09:41 ET by rob6677They wouldn't print it if it wasn't true!
"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice." Clint Eastwood
Because they are "outside" the Journalist bubble ? ?
August 17, 2007 - 09:47 ET by JayTeeActually, one has only to look at headlines, then read the body of an Article, to understand the Headline contains an error, compared to the details........When is Bias an error ? I'm not talking about Bias, I'm talking an Erroneous Bold type 6 word or so headline, followed by paragraphs that discount the headline.
E.G., they publish their own documentation of the erorrs, daily.
One could probably pick up a USA today, today, and find a shining example. I can't do that myself, because the 75 cents I spend would support yellow Journalism. I'll have to look for one in the Trash.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Noel, question is why?
August 17, 2007 - 09:40 ET by LionKingThe question that comes to mind immediately is WHY?
Are they purposely allowing the errors in order to fulfill their agenda? Are they just trying to "scoop" everyone else so they fail at their responsibility of "due diligence"? Are they just that stupid and lazy...irresponsible?
[I am sure that the MSM will be following this study closely and keeping the public informed. </sarc ]
LK
August 17, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Noel SheppardLK,
Until we see the entire study, I think it's tough to tell. Some of these mistakes are seemingly innocent misspellings of names. Things like that. However, let's see what the study says when released, and then we'll know more.
Yet, even those mistakes should be unacceptable. It's possible that the lack of profitability of these organizations has caused under-employment of proofreaders, editors, etc., thereby allowing more mistakes than normal. Just a function of the decline in the industry maybe. ns
Hold on one second
August 17, 2007 - 09:45 ET by LeonHold on one second Noel.
I've been told numerous times by multiple members on this site that Slate is not a valid source of information.
That sentiment seems to be fairly common here. So is slate only considered valid when it writes articles that the Newsbusters community views favorably?
(*I know YOU never said Slate was not valid, I'm just putting the question out there)
Leon
August 17, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Noel SheppardLeon,
Point taken. However, they're reporting on a university study, and quoting its lead author. Once this is released -- not sure what day that is -- I'll be looking at, as will many others.
In reality, I would love to find another source on this study, because I'm not a fan of Slate's. Sadly, nobody else is covering it. So, this is the best source I can find at this time. ns
Noel, I am a fan of
August 17, 2007 - 10:10 ET by LeonNoel,
I am a fan of Slate, but it's not necessarily for the news. I think they take a unique look at current events. It's refreshing and I read it more for entertainment than anything else.
I wouldn't be surprised if this study is correct, however, the severity of the errors will be the key. Misspellings, grammatical errors, etc. don't really matter all that much.
Mistakes are common in all organizations. For instance, I recently had to take a continuing education course for work that used a Kaplan study book. There were errors! Their only job was to provide me with the factual information, and it was wrong! Some study guide right?
I'm consistently shocked by some of the high level errors I hear about in the business world that I work in.
That being said, media sources should be held to a higher standard. If you're disseminating information, you should take great pains to ensure that it's accurate/mistake free.
I too will be interested to read this study.
here's the source
August 17, 2007 - 10:33 ET by uncle_buckHere is the actual source ...
http://www.aejmc.org...
Already interesting from the summary "Subjective errors were considered most egregious, suggesting that how a story is conveyed is at least as important as getting the facts straight."
So they counted subjective errors too - hmmmm. Should be an interesting read.
Thanks for the link Buck.
August 17, 2007 - 10:37 ET by LeonThanks for the link Buck. Should be an interesting read indeed.
Did you know I've been known to circumcise a gnat?
TMI Leon
August 17, 2007 - 10:42 ET by Cool ArrowBut out of curiosity, why did you circumcise a gnat? Is this a case of "Physician, heal thyself"?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Cool, It's a line from
August 17, 2007 - 10:43 ET by LeonCool,
It's a line from the movie UNCLE BUCK, which is why I posted it in reply to the NB member, UNCLE BUCK.
Sorry I figured everyone and their mother has seen and loved the great comedy, UNCLE BUCK.
Good ol' Buck "Melanoma"
August 17, 2007 - 13:50 ET by Hero SquadGood ol' Buck "Melanoma" head... Mazie's wart.
*****
"Some people have a way with words. Other people, er, I don't know. Not have way, I guess." - Steve Martin.
Moley Russel's wart. Such a
August 17, 2007 - 13:53 ET by balboaMoley Russel's wart. Such a funny movie.
One of the greatest ever.
August 17, 2007 - 13:55 ET by LeonOne of the greatest ever. John Candy is a comedic legend.
I remember being a kid and dreaming of the day when I could flip a pancake with a snow shovel.
obvious slate error
August 17, 2007 - 10:42 ET by uncle_buckFrom slate :
"The results might shock even the most jaded of newspaper readers. About
69 percent of the 3,600 news sources completed the survey, and they
spotted 2,615 factual errors in 1,220 stories."
From the real article :
"From 4,800 news sources identified in fourteen newspapers, 3,287
completed questionnaires were returned"
In fact the numbers 3,600 2,615, and 1,220 are nowhere to be found in the article.
You'd think when writing about errors that you would strive not to make any!!!
UB
August 17, 2007 - 11:03 ET by Noel SheppardUB,
Check that link. That's from Fall 2005 I believe. Maier et al have been doing this annually since 2002: http://jcomm.uoregon...
The paper Slate cited has not yet been released I believe. ns
I stand corrected
August 17, 2007 - 11:14 ET by uncle_buckYou are correct. The new study looks like it will have almost identical results as the previous one.
Maybe scandals like this
August 17, 2007 - 10:26 ET by sarcasmoWill make the journalists out there reconsider their idiotic, undefended-logically, but nearly-universal policy of springing imagination-filled stories on clue-filled victims because it's somehow unethical to let the clueful see a rough draft and offer suggestions/corrections/factual-context? Nah, it'll never happen!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Why? Because they are
August 17, 2007 - 10:37 ET by AlgerHissWhy? Because they are ignorant and lazy. Oh, bias plays a part as well, but frontline journalists and their editors are not the rocket scientists most think they are.
And the larger truth is, this is not new: This has been going on for decades.
We'd be horrified if we knew what garbage we've been fed all these years.
Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!
Newpaper Errors
August 17, 2007 - 10:38 ET by pocomocoNewspapers must compete with 24/7 cable news which is able to provide immediate coverage of news events. By their nature, newspapers are unable to compete with such coverage.
In their attempts to do so, they have placed ‘fact checking’ into a circular file thus adding to their high error rate.
It is, however, unconscionable that they deem it unnecessary to correct their mistakes.
Newspapers are slowly going the way of the buggy whip, and they know it.
As they layoff and reduce the size of the papers, ala the NYT, they steadfastly refuse to do what it would take to remedy their situation by foregoing their elitist/agenda driven attitude which will lead to their eventual downfall.
Shall we bow our heads in their remembrance.
Then, like I say below...
August 17, 2007 - 10:47 ET by Wildcatter1980...the print media should focus on reporting A C C U R A T E L Y . That can be a niche that they can excel in compared to 24/7 cable news. Many people (I hate to say) still view the NYTimes as all the news that's fit to print. If the print media focuses on factually accurate reporting they will at least give themselves a fighting chance. If they refuse to address the concerns raise by this pending study, then they are truly dinosaurs and are doomed to the same fate as the dinosaurs.
Just my $0.02
It's Darwin in Action
August 17, 2007 - 10:41 ET by Wildcatter1980Evolution. Survival of the fittest.
If the print media referenced in this study is to survive they will need to adapt or, specifically, improve their quality of reporting by reducing if not eliminating errors. The American auto industry found this out when the high quality of Japanese imports nearly killed the Big Three . While they are not "out of the woods," Detroit's quality is much better than it was in the late 70's and early 80's. If the print media does not make the necessary efforts to report the news accurately they will have only themselves to blame when the doors shut for the last time.
Just my $0.02
W1980
August 17, 2007 - 10:52 ET by pocomocoThe problem is that they are NOT the fittest. Even Darwin would have a problem with them.
Wild--the point is that
August 17, 2007 - 11:01 ET by ncstevemWild--the point is that newspapers will NOT survive regardless if they change the way they 'report' the news. Newspaper 'news' is already 12 -24 hours old by the time it reaches the customer.
The only people buying newpapers in numbers are the 50 and over crowd who buy it out of force of habit. The 20 - 50 age range don't read newspapers. Guess who the target audience for newspaper retail ads are? Newspaper classified ads are also losing to the internet. So newspapers are in a triple bind--losing news readers to cable and more importantly the internet, losing retail ad revenue because the target audience no longer reads the product, and the cash cow of classified ads going over to the internet too!!
I think will begin seeing many newspapers fold in about (7) years and many to most will cease to exist in (15) years.
Couldn't happen to a nicer crowd.
Use to..you needed to buy a car...newspaper was a choice
August 17, 2007 - 12:09 ET by JayTeeNowadays, buying a new car the newspaper has relevance...but not as much as it used to.
If you wanna sell a used car....you go to the Internet and reach a HUGE audience...not your local paper. If you want to find a car only driven to church by a little 'ole lady, you go to the Newspaper because that is where the little 'ole lady put her ad....Unless her Grandson is helping her on the internet.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
This is part of the reason I cancelled my paper subscription
August 17, 2007 - 11:05 ET by c5thenYears ago I cancelled my subscription to my local newspaper. Two major reasons caused me to do this: 1) I was tired of the preaching, leftward slant and the demagoguery that was constantly in their articles and their editorials. 2) I was disgusted with the level of error and misstated facts and just plain lies that were in their articles and editorials.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
corrected
August 17, 2007 - 11:12 ET by uncle_buckThe link I provided was from 2005 - a very similar study. I stand corrected :)