Journalists don’t make mistakes, they make revisions.
Despite spell check, Google, archives, fact checking and asking
the guy next to them, journalists – from time to time – will report facts that
are wrong less true than desired.
When readers
demand circumstances call for
it, journalists and their editors will issue a correction.
As a public service, when running a correction, whether it’s
correcting a source’s name or admitting that the documents used for Sunday’s
front-page story were forged, newspapers conveniently place corrections in the
bottom corner of an inside page. Oddly, this is the same area where newspapers have decided to place phone numbers to
complain about late deliveries or to cancel subscriptions. Not sure why.
But with the invention of the Internet, correcting corrections is
no harder than a couple strokes of the delete key and hitting refresh. No one
will ever know the difference. No harm, no foul.
And the correction is a great opportunity to pass the buck on the
actual mistake. Sometimes corrections are “clarifications.” But the classic
scapegoat when it comes to corrections is “due to a desk editing error . . .”
Oddly enough, copyeditors are never in on those discussions. But placing blame
is not the real reason of a correction, right? Right?
Every journalist can identify with having to run that first
correction.
Nothing can ruin a journalist’s day better than seeing a glaring
error in print. Right there on every doorstep, kitchen table, work desk, in
every newsstand, bathroom stall and outhouse. It’s those days journalists are
glad newspaper readership is down.
Then there’s the business of addressing the correction.
There’s palm sweat-inducing meeting with the editor, going over
the how the correction came to be, the wording of said correction and the
“action plan” to prevent future incidents. Then there’s the embarrassment of
calling the source back, declaring a white flag and saying, “You were right and
I was wrong.” And most times, it’s the last time that source will ever again
bring up the issue.
There are always those sources that aren’t happy with a correction
unless the entire story is rerun on the front page with a giant headline
stating that the original story was incorrect. This never happens, and
journalists must appease readers who are infuriated that their pet iguana Damon
was referred to as a lizard named Demon.
Journalists just hope that the story where an editor spliced half
of a local boy scouts training story with an AP story about soldiers on a
covert mission in Iraq - true story - doesn’t show up on Jay Leno’s headlines
with their byline attached to it for the entire world to see.
Though they can cause headaches, ulcers and hangovers, journalists
ultimately like corrections because they keep journalists on their toes and
allows them to keep their trust with the public. Corrections are why
journalists are still rated as more trustworthy than trial lawyers.
In journalism, there is no such thing as a mulligan.
