Bird-dogging news errors in the modern media age
Studies show that 40 to 60 percent of news stories contain errors, and those mistakes now live on in electronic form, reaching ever-wider audiences. Is there an oversight role for independent news councils?
“It’s really important that we have accountability mechanisms in journalism. When it comes to our own accountability, most news organizations are doing a pretty poor job, to be blunt.” — Craig Silverman, columnist and media critic.
Craig Silverman, a regular columnist for Columbia Journalism Review and The Toronto Star, is also author of “Regret the Error – How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech.”
In a keynote speech to the Organization of News Ombudsmen (ONO) annual convention in Montreal last week, Silverman cited several studies which found that 40 to 60 percent of news stories contained some kind of error! A comprehensive survey of U.S. newspapers found the highest error rate on record.
“We’ve been telling people for literally hundreds of years that when we make a mistake we correct it,” Silverman said. But the U.S. study found a correction rate of only about 2 percent.
“That is pretty outrageous,” Silverman said. “If we’re only correcting 2 percent of errors, we’re not meeting our own standards. It represents a serious failure on the part of news organizations.”
“Reporters will be inclined to not want to run a correction, because they’ve been trained that that’s a bad thing,” Silverman said. “They need to change that attitude.” He’s right on both counts.
What’s more, errors are “now forever,” because they are cached online and spread worldwide by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., Silverman noted. Dealing with complaints about errors is one of the jobs of news ombudsmen — and also of news or press councils.
I joined the Organization of News Ombudsmen as an associate member last year, partly because I love the acronym — ONO! — but also because the Washington News Council is a kind of “outside ombudsman” for news media in this state.
Unfortunately, there are no full-time ombudsmen at any news organizations in our state anymore. That’s too bad. Over the years when I was at The Seattle Times, they had four different ombudsmen. A couple of them were pretty good. I edited their columns, which ran on the editorial pages.
Ombudsmen hear and respond to complaints from readers, viewers, or listeners about news stories that are arguably inaccurate, unfair, imbalanced and/or unethical. That’s also what news or press councils do — and what we have done for the past 13 years.
Some say that ombudsmen — because they are employed by the news outlets, have offices in or near the newsrooms, and generally know the editors, reporters, and producers — can deal with complaints more effectively. Of course, since their salaries are paid by those they are hired to critique, some also may question their level of independence. But most try to be fair, thorough and constructively critical. Many do criticize their own newspapers, broadcast stations, and/or websites strongly — and they’re often not too popular in newsrooms.
Also, the number of ombudsmen around the world has declined over the years — especially in the United States. ONO now has about 60 members worldwide, with only 20 in the U.S. Many media organizations say they simply can’t afford the position anymore, when they don’t even have enough reporters to cover their local communities.
Ombudsmen’s jobs have been eliminated at many American newspapers in recent decades — including at The Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. At the same time, some of the best American newspapers — The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today — have created or enhanced the position, although some are called “public editors” or “reader representatives.” There are also experienced ombudsmen at most major broadcast news outlets worldwide. In this country, only PBS, NPR, and now ESPN have ombudsmen.
Jeffrey Dvorkin, former NPR ombudsman who now is executive director of ONO, told his colleagues in Montreal: “The ombudsman’s job is like being on the front lines of the First Amendment…We’re in between the public and the editors. We point out the warts and flaws. The [news] organization doesn’t want to hear it. We’re speaking truth to power.”
Jacob Mollerup, the current president of ONO, whose title is “Listeners and Viewers Editor” at the Danish Broadcasting Corporation in Copenhagen, wryly described the job as “a lonely hell.”
He was only half joking. ONO members often say they have “the loneliest job in the newsroom.” Most journalists don’t like to hear complaints about their work and are reluctant to make corrections or explain their performance in public — which is what they always demand of those they cover. Double standard? Unquestionably.
The annual ONO conference is an opportunity for attendees to come together, swap stories, compare tactics, and commiserate with others who are in the same boat. Three days of panels, speakers and “shop talk” — with a few dinners and receptions thrown in — clearly have a therapeutic effect.
A draft business plan, sent out in advance and discussed on the final day of the gathering, notes that ONO’s first goal should be as a “meeting place and discussion forum.” The Montreal conference, for the first time, was simultaneously translated into English, French and Spanish, which was a great help to all.
Another goal is outreach — promoting ombudsmanship in cooperation with partners around the world. That includes being “a serious partner in media projects where different organizations join forces in order to promote media accountability.”
A third is to expand the organization: “ONO should welcome members of independent press councils as associates.” I was invited to speak on a panel at their convention last year at Oxford University on how ombudsmen and press councils can work more closely together. And Mollerup recently attended the Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe (AIPCE) conference.
A final goal is to keep an open mind for new projects and ways of promoting media accountability — including in cyberspace. That’s precisely what the WNC has been doing for the last few years, and I shared some of our ideas with ONO members:
- Report an Error. Silverman and Scott Rosenberg of MediaBugs have developed a new online “Report an Error” system now being used by about 100 news sites and blogs. The WNC has been working with them and we now have the “Report an Error” widget on the Washington News Council site. We invite readers to report errors in Pacific Northwest media as we test this intriguing new system.
- NewsTrust.net. We also invite them to nominate and review state and regional stories on our NewsTrust.net widget. You must register to become a reviewer and it’s a great tool, especially to praise high-quality stories.
- Online community. People may join our online community and begin participating in discussions of various topics. Our groups have grown steadily.
- Online Media Guide. We’re also developing a new Online Media Guide (OMG) for Washington news and information sources, which will be a valuable resource for journalists, public-affairs professionals, politicians, academics, etc.
One of the most interesting speakers in Montreal was Guy Amyot, executive secretary of the Press Council of Quebec. His council, unlike some others in Canada and elsewhere, hears complaints about print, broadcast, and online news media, not just newspapers.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Fri, May 27, 5:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Publishing comments as Crosscut does is helpful. Crosscut readers often spot errors and dubious reasoning in posts. Our local printed paper does post some comments online for, I think, a quite limited period of time. In the case of the Seattle Times the print version of Letters to the Editor feature seems to favor the overexcited rants along with frequent misstatements of fact. That's too bad. Back in the day he Letters column was usually quite interesting.
Posted Sat, May 28, 7:31 a.m. Inappropriate
In Seattle, ECB alone would make correcting basic factual errors a full time job.
Posted Sat, May 28, 9:30 a.m. Inappropriate
Another issue beyond errors is not fleshing out stories or providing context. The recent firing (rehiring) of the Ingraham principal by Seattle Schools is a good example.
Many journalists have either written or said on the radio that it was a popularity contest and that the Superintendent capitulated to the school community. A more nuanced view would show that it wasn't about popularity or just one year's worth of scores but about looking at ALL the things that Martin Floe has (or hasn't) achieved at Ingraham High. The Superintendent, on balance, felt she needed to look at the entire picture and give him another year to correct those things that the district feels need to be corrected.
Journalists (and editors) who care about getting it right are getting scarce.
Posted Sat, May 28, 10:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Good point, John, about the compromised position of ombudsmen. Some are
treated in their organizations about as Internal Affairs officers are treated in police departments. I regularly read ombudsman comments, in particular, in The New York Times and Washington Post. Even when the errors they discuss are egregious, the ombudsmen temper their criticism.
Alternative media don't operate by the old standards of accuracy and fairness. So-called mainstream media have also slipped badly, as your data would indicate. The Tea Party and other protest movements are not just fed up with politicians and Wall Street; they are fed up as well with media and distrustful of much of what they see and read---unfortunately, for good reason. We see the result in falling circulation and viewership
among traditional print and electronic media. Easier to turn to Fox News or MSNBC, where bias is offered without apology.
Posted Sat, May 28, 5:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Perhaps it's worth noting: The founders when contemplating the First Amendment were eminently aware that we all (with the possible exception of self-imagined news-council representatives) are eminently fallible as we toil in an imperfect world. The founders seem to have appreciated the notion that, were journalists to have to prove to some other authority that everything they publish is absolutely true, it would in effect mean they couldn't publish anything. Once again John Hamer (hope you get your salary funding back again next year, buddy) has exhibited with this piece precisely what several local news execs (who would never let Hamer anywhere near their operations and for great and good reason) have said in various ways: News councils are "solutions" in search of a problem. If you find what you think is an error, John, send a letter to the editor. Meanwhile, check some of your own usage and punctuation mistakes. --Mike Henderson
Posted Sun, May 29, 9:05 a.m. Inappropriate
Comments on Crosscut are always substantive and interesting, unlike some other sites plagued by rude trolls.
Kieth is right that commenters often point out errors and poor reasoning. However, not as many people read the comments as read the original stories, so inaccurate information can do damage indefinitely. Therefore, the cliche that "It's never wrong for long" online is not really true. And if you are the one who has been harmed by a false or unfair story, being told to respond with a comment or letter is hardly equitable. The Seattle Times now prints only a handful of letters each day, when we used to run a dozen or more when I was there. And we always gave preference to those that disagreed with Times editorials and columns, or raised questions about news stories.
Westello is right that not "fleshing out" stories or "providing context" is a problem, especially in today's 24/7 news cycle when there's a deadline every second. The old newsroom saying: "Get it first, but first get it right" is widely ignored these days. And the News Council has received more complaints in recent years about stories that were NOT covered: Sins of omission rather than commission. Those are tough for us to handle, because I strongly believe that news outlets still should get to decide what to cover and what to ignore. If we start second-guessing them, it's a slippery slope. Whose pet issue is being overlooked? Yikes.
Ted is correct that some ombudsmen are tougher than others. At the ONO conference in Montreal, one speaker said there were three kinds of ombudsmen: 1) soft and wussy ones, who were loathe to criticize their friends in the newsroom or the front office; 2) moderate ones, who would tweak occasionally but "temper their criticism," as Ted notes; and 3) gloves-off, hard-hitting, in-house critics who let the chips fall where they may. I prefer the last kind -- as do most readers. And they're the kind who help make the media more credible and trusted, in my view. But when major media organizations do not have ombudsmen, where is the recourse? News councils are no panacea, but we can help, since we operate as a kind of "outside ombudsman."
Which brings me to Mike Henderson's comments, reminiscent of the last time he commented on one of my Crosscut posts. Mike, you're absolutely right that the Founding Fathers did not want journalists to be under official government regulation or control, which is why the press is protected by the First Amendment. However, they said nothing about citizen oversight. The News Council is a non-profit organization made up of people who care deeply about accurate, high-quality and ethical news media. Many of our members are or have been experienced journalists, including some of our old Times colleagues. We know the media are "eminently fallible" (aren't we all?), which is why we ask them to be as transparent, accountable and open as they ask of everyone they cover. What's wrong with that? It boosts public trust. (See http://taoofjournalism.org for a fun tool that's catching on globally, especially among young student journalists. As for my "salary funding," well, it's always been a challenge to keep the News Council solvent -- but we've survived for 13 years now and were just named "Organization of the Year" by the Municipal League. We received a $200,000 two-year challenge grant from the Gates Foundation that we had to match -- and we did. So not everyone thinks we are a "solution in search of a problem." Just ask Sheriff Sue Rahr, Secretary of State Sam Reed, the Washington Beef and Dairy Commissions, and others whose valid complaints against news media organizations we reviewed and upheld after careful and thorough consideration in an open public process. As for local news execs letting me anywhere near their operations, well, we've had many top media leaders on our council over the years, including publishers, editors and reporters. (See http://wanewscouncil.org for our Founding Board, current Board and Board Emeritus.) It's a pretty distinguished group. BTW, if you see any usage or punctuation mistakes, please let me know. I like to correct my errors, which is what we're encouraging all journalists to do. Finally, I'd like to buy you a beer and discuss your concerns in person. My palatial walk-up office is on the third floor above the Pyramid Alehouse. Come on down!
Posted Sun, May 29, 11:18 a.m. Inappropriate
The subject is worth pursuing because "freedom of the press," as it was known before the new-media revolution, is vital to our national health.
Henderson expresses a view held by many publishers and editors---that is, that no one, absolutely no one should question what they do except through a lawsuit or letter to the editor. Otherwise, they reason, they are above
review except by God.
Trouble is, alternative and mainstream journalism---as the law, politics, and other pursuits---has its share of incompetents, sloppy performers, and outrightly dishonest types. If the government is not to police them, and it decidedly should not, then who should do so? No one? Police departments have civilian review boards which hear complaints. Other professions have oversight as well.
The News Council, it seems to me, is one way to address the matter. I am a former board member of the Council. I found that staff and other board members were quite serious and conscientious in their duties---especially relating to complaints brought by individuals and groups against media.
Many complaints were judged to be without sufficient basis and were not heard. No editor, as Henderson points out, is likely to want oversight
from an outside source, particularly one he or she considers to be self-appointed. But if facts are mangled or stories slanted, where should injured parties turn? They know, going in, that an editor will simply tell them to get lost or write a letter, which may or may not get published (and which, in any case, will follow the offending story by a considerable time period and in far fewer words).
I started out as a journalist and was for a time before military service thrust me into another place and career. In that other career, I kept my hand in journalism with periodic op-ed essays. But I also had occasion to deal over many years with journalists good and bad, principled and unprincipled. I also saw how difficult it was to get a published or broadcast mistake corrected or retracted. Media folk need to recognize that, like every other profession, they commit mistakes of omission and commission. They also should recognize that their mistakes can be more damaging to people and organizations than those in other places because
they transmit information relating to the honesty and integrity of those they cover. When they get it wrong, there must be some process to make it right. "Send a letter" is not good enough.
Posted Sun, May 29, 12:35 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks, John, but I only drink beer on the golf course and haven't accepted gratuities since I was a film-junket slut at the P-I during the '70s.
Maybe all your worries could be addressed if, instead of your ineffectual "news council," all grievances pertaining to the press could simply (and swiftly) be adjudicated by a tribunal. I'm thinking you, Ted and maybe Sarah Palin, who may have some time on her hands after the jackals of the press (or "lame-stream media," as she prefers) have their way with her. BTW, Ted, "details" can be mangled but "facts" can't. mh
Posted Sun, May 29, 3:06 p.m. Inappropriate
John and I disagree on a number of issues, and yet we've always worked well together because we both care deeply about the values of quality accurate journalism in our democracy.
No matter what kind of technological changes take place, Press Council's will always be relevant because many times it takes a body of actual humans to make things right. As John said, comments are easily buried, and letters to the editors are heavily filtered. We like Scott Rosenberg's ambition with MediaBugs.org which is why we installed his widget on our site and will be moderating bug submissions.
A lot of the work John does is provide advice and counsel through private conversations, and he's done a lot of work to resolve disputes before they have to go to a higher level of action. The problem with technology will always be it's futility for those who are less able to keep up, and no matter what changes come forth, we are there to experiment and recommend the best course of action for getting the story right.
Thanks for the feedback,
Jacob Caggiano
Washington News Council
Posted Sun, May 29, 4:27 p.m. Inappropriate
US institutions are experiencing a crisis of confidence, news media among them. A healthy and respected press is vital but printed newspapers are losing their consumers and have yet to establish a stable online business model. In this murky environment one thing does seem clear: it's likely that the future of journalism will include more open and uninhibited dialogue and critiquing of source credibility at every stage - including the original reporter's. If this leads to a more credible and trusted news media, we all benefit. As for HOW we get there - well, there's a lot of experimentation. John Hamer's brand of news council has evolved too - engaging in and promoting a variety of new forms of public conversation and feedback, while holding up journalistic standards (transparency, accountability, openness) that seem to resonate with people. In short, his council is an advocate for consumers and an ally of the best in news organizations, pulling for their success. How could one be against that?
Posted Mon, May 30, 10:34 p.m. Inappropriate
Typo, Kieth. Back in the day, the Letters, not back in the day he Letters.
Posted Tue, May 31, 7:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Public trust in the press is fairly low right now, primarily for these reasons:
1) The advent of overtly biased "news" services. FOX News is the best example, but there are others. This doesn't require explanation as everyone is familiar with it. It grew, I suppose, out of talk radio and discovery of profits available from this sort of "info"tainment.
2) The de-contextualized and sensationalized presentation of the news. Television is probably at the root of these evils. All political contests are presented as horse races and there is no substantive discussion of issues. All news is twisted and hyped for to attract the maximum number of eyeballs for advertisers.
3) The abandonment of local reporting to "new journalism". One of the comments on this thread came from westello, Melissa Westbrook, who writes on the Save Seattle Schools blog. People turn to that blog for news about Seattle Public Schools because it is the best source for school district news. It is the best source because the local media has abandoned the field. The only good professional reporting on the school district comes from KUOW's Phyllis Fletcher. The Seattle Times proves itself clueless with regard to the District again and again.
4) I think everyone has had the experience of participating first-hand in an event and then being astonished by an account of the event in the paper (or on the radio or on TV). You shake your head and wonder "How could the reporter have gotten the event so wrong?" And then you begin to wonder if ALL of the reporting is equally inaccurate.
The first key to restoring public trust in the news is for the news services to cover local stories and to cover them better - complete with context.
Posted Tue, May 31, 1:19 p.m. Inappropriate
In the spirit of Lawrence O'Donnell and his 'rewrite' portion of his show on MSNBC called "Last Word", the following suggestion is offered: Journalism schools across the country should have as class projects the examination and possible rewrite of the entire body of work as offered by the New York Times as the official paper of record and source of "All the news that's fit to print" for the last 50-60 years. Main stream media has been following the daily morning NYTimes lead as gospel truth and it all deserves a massive public correction.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.