The Online Corrections Problem... Again
from the haven't-we-seen-this-before? dept
About a year ago, Online Journalism Review had an article about newspaper corrections online where they noted that most newspapers were horrible at making it easy for people to contact them about errors online, and even worse about actually fixing online errors. Now, in something of a followup, OJR digs much more deeply into the question of whether or not the websites of newspapers should correct errors in their stories. Last year, I was quoted for a story about spam in the LA Times, and when I pointed out that they made a mistake in quoting me, I was told that they couldn't correct it, even in the online version without going through a big correction process, because if they fixed it (and in this case, it would require adding two letters to what had been written) "we could fiddle with stories all the time, and people would never know what the truth is." Well, indeed, that wasn't just what they told me, it appears to be official policy of the LA Times, as outlined in the OJR article. The article does a good job presenting both sides of the story. One side believes in correcting mistakes, along with a note mentioning that corrections were made or (for more serious corrections) explaining the nature of the correction. The other side is afraid of that whole "fiddling with the truth" issue, and says that once something is published it should remain -- but with a correction note attached to the story. Both sides make fairly compelling arguments as to why they're right, and there are some cases that cause obvious problems for either side. It seems like a fairly fine line, but correcting little typos and mistakes seems like a reasonable thing to do, while more major factual errors should be left in with a clearly marked and highly visible editor's note explaining the problem.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Monographic Monocles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as they document it
As long as they note the reason, we don't have to worry about having always been at war with Eurasia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As long as they document it
Historians will use newspapers as articles of record of the time, (not as articles of historic truth, necessarily) and sometimes even the mistakes become a part of the history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As long as they document it
So the purpose of a newspaper is to publish something that will become a reliable record of whatever it was that the newspaper published?
Being informative is irrelevant? Being correct is irrelevant? Being relevant is irrelevant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As long as they document it
Having said that, there's nothing wrong with including a change log that identifies the changes made to particular story since it first broke. The Wall Street Journal seems to adhere to this concept (print and online), and it works well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]