Fact Checking vs. Rapid Corrections: Which Is More Important?
from the reporting-vs.-conversations dept
A bunch of folks have been pointing to a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review, discussing the speed and style with which some "mainstream" media sources and some "new media" sources corrected a particular story. Apparently a newspaper in Arizona misreported some comments by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and the misquote was picked up by numerous blogs and online news sites. However, once it became clear what had happened, the new media sites were much faster to issue corrections, while making it clear what was corrected (often leaving the original up and noting the correction). The mainstream paper -- who originated the story -- was much slower about fixing things, and when it did, simply deleted the mistaken part at first, before later putting up a vague note about the change.To some extent, I believe this shows the different mindsets of some of these newer publications. I've talked in the past about how I view this blog as a conversation, not a reporting venue. And, as such, I don't delete stuff, even when it turns out that I made a mistake. Instead, I'll do a strikethrough or cross out, along with an update explaining what happened. I don't think it's right to simply "disappear" the original -- though I've had some traditional journalists (and one Hollywood lawyer) act as if I had done something horrible in using a strikethrough on mistaken content.
And yet, personally, I've found that, while I hate it when a story is wrong, the fact that I correct such stories fully and openly has built up greater trust. The few times we've needed to correct such a story, the response has almost always been universally positive rather than negative. As mentioned above, it's like the difference between a conversation and old-school reporting. Old school reporting sought to be "the source of record." A conversation is more about learning as you go. In a conversation, I might say something -- and the person/people I'm talking to may correct me, and from that we all learn. But for traditional reporters, such an error is seen as a huge black mark that requires rewriting history and "disappearing" the mistake -- rather than leaving it there, with a clear update, so that everyone can learn.
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
Filed Under: conversations, correcting, fact checking, journalism, reporting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
1984 Called
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1984 Called
There in lies the problem ... If news types allow open discussion on their sites people will correct them .... people correcting them shows they make mistakes .... them making mistakes shows they don't fact check, are just rehashing press statements, re-quoting reports that have been disproven, or are just political toadies ....
... the point is they can't open up and allow unlimited open comments where people correct them, if they did everyone would see how biased, politically motivated and wrong they are.... then who would our spoon fed, ignorant, public go to for news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
balance?
wrong question is which is more important, because they both are equally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: balance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: balance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, they tried, but they got THAT fact wrong too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both, of course.
But the answer to your headline is "Both." Today's rush to be first often trumps being correct. And while everyone makes mistakes and errors, which should be correctly clearly and plainly when they are recognized, fewer corrections would be necessary if a story or blog post were checked, even cursorily, before hitting the "post" or "print" button.
Even on Techdirt, following links to the stories being reported on, and the links those stories contain, often reveals that the facts may be different than originally assumed or that the answers to questions posed or issues raised are contained in the original documents, not the stories written about those original documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it won't "Disappear"
But, I agree with Mike, mistakes should be struck out and corrections noted along side the original work. The idea that you can simply hit the Delete key and pretend it never happened is a joke. Once you put your work out there, it's out there for good. As noted, several other sites picked up on the work and you don't have the ability to "disappear" those sites.
So, just admit your mistakes. It makes you seem more human and thus easier to relate to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both have great value.
--You must be willing to publicly and prominently amend the record (e.g., strikethroughs with corrections immediately following).
--You still must consider the implications of "getting it wrong." For example, if your original story is likely to cause irreparable damage to someone's reputation or livelihood, you have an ethical obligation to obtain further corroboration.
If you fail to do either, your own reputation will rightly be tarnished. I can think of several MSM sources I no longer follow due to their violation of one or both of these basic tenets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the damage is done
Oh, for all the journalists reading this, you may get a kick out of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPo9sCqza98
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If nothing else, perhaps this is another way to seperate actual media from "chatting bloggers" - bloggers have no real problem with getting it wrong over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If nothing else, perhaps this is another way to seperate actual media from "chatting bloggers" - bloggers have no real problem with getting it wrong over and over again.
The point was that bloggers do have a serious problem with getting things wrong -- which is why they tend to be faster and more honest in their corrections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A good example would be Perez Hilton pushing a story about Michael Jackson faking a heart attack so that he wouldn't have to perform in the UK. Had he waited a very few minutes, he would have known that the guy was in fact dead. His crass and rude comments left him looking like a fool. Had anyone taken him seriously, they might have missed the real story.
A discussion between friends that people mistake for being actual news is very dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break
Shit, the mainstream press doesn't even NEED a fucking fact checker, because almost all its column inches are verbatim cut-and-paste jobs from public spokemen and corporate PR departments.
Bloggers and fact-checkers ARE the fact checkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Replacing vs Striking-through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blogging as Journalism
I don't think anyone has mentioned Wikinews which not only provides "live" editing and so forth of news articles, but also has a complete history so you could see every edit and change made. However, I couldn't find references to Scalia's "misquote" in either Wikinews or Wikipedia...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]