In journalism, there is no such thing as a mulligan.
There’s not much that frighten journalists. They drive toward storms, have seen their fair share of dead bodies and on a daily basis go toe-to-toe with PR flacks.
But 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 slightly less truer than desired.
When circumstances call for it, journalists will issue a correction.
As a public service, whether it’s correcting a source’s name or admitting that the documents used for Sunday’s frontpage story were forged, newspapers conveniently bury 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.
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?
There are always those sources that aren’t happy with a correction unless the entire story is republished on the front page. This never happens, and journalists must find other ways to appease readers who are infuriated that their pet iguana Damon was referred to as a lizard named Demon.
Every journalist can identify with having running that first correction.
Nothing can ruin a journalist’s day more than seeing a glaring error in print; right there on every doorstep, kitchen table, work desk, 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 that 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 that is why journalists like corrections. After journalists get that tasty aftertaste of what a correction tastes like, from that day froward they will double check the spelling of last name Smith, rerun the figures in their city budget story and stay 15 minutes late calling back a source to confirm a quote.
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 more trustworthy than trial lawyers.
Corrections that don’t get journalists fired only make them stronger.
More from @JournalistsLike
- Stuff Journalists Like – #74 Working Off The Clock
- Stuff Journalists Like – #8 The First Day
- Stuff Journalists Like – #63 Leaving Journalism
@JournalistsLike Recommends
- Hidden Fears, A Love Story (High Road Artist)
- Rescue Dog Braves the Great Outdoors: Skye Breaks Free (High Road Artist)
Yeah, I definitely had a pain in my stomach the first time I had to run a correction (after college). Horrible feeling.
If you think journalists “like” corrections, then you must not have written for any of the papers I’ve worked for. Corrections get journalists fired, and in some places, pretty fast.
Journalists like corrections like we like layoffs… This is tongue-in-cheek humor.
No kidding, Ricky. My first correction was from the paper’s crime beat. I had confused the victim and the criminal’s names! That crime beat – and the correction – were tacked to my desk for months as a reminder to PROOFREAD! Now I read my stories and crime beats five times over before sending them to the editors.
Unsie Zuege said, “OMG. It took me years to look at the paper on the day it came out because I was afraid of what I might find…” Remember. What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. And more accurate.