“I don’t like the idea … that we’re catering to how someone wants to appear,” she said. “I think we’re a little bit too quick to say, ‘oh we’re sorry.’ ”

I asked Hettinga what surprised her that she learned during the interviews. Along with Nathan’s in-person apologies for a mistake, she spoke of one journalist who detailed the extent to which he tried to talk people out of corrections.

“I think it was probably when I interviewed the sports reporter who talked about smoothing over an error,” she said. “What had happened was he had been covering I think it was a high school sport or something and he had messed up an athlete’s name. Not surprisingly the student athlete’s parents called and said, ‘Hey, you got my kid’s name wrong.’ He said that he felt he had apologized in such a way that the whole thing was smoothed over. The parents were now happy, they understood that he felt sad about making the mistake and therefore it didn’t really need to be corrected.”

Not surprisingly, Hettinga also found there was no process for online corrections at the paper. Those in the newsroom knew that a print correction would run on A2, and they seemed to have a general idea about how to write corrections and get them in the paper. (This was in spite of the fact that Hettinga couldn’t find any written policies regarding corrections.) Online was an afterthought. The best that seemed to happen was an editor would sometimes go in and scrub errors out of online content. So no actual written notice of corrections.

“He typically would do that for something ‘smaller,’ as he described it, something like updating a name error or a date error like that, he would scrub it,” she told me. “But, again, it wasn’t consistent either. It was if he thought of it, if someone reminded him.”
This Jekyll and Hyde reality at The Daily Express is a big part of what I think makes its newsroom so typical. There are good people working hard and trying their best. They care about the quality of their work. But some of these same people have a backwards attitude about what it means to be accountable or to truly correct something. Others simply want to avoid the issue altogether.

Amidst these differences, there is a lack of understanding and policies around accuracy and corrections. The leadership is not setting an example or providing the necessary guidance. On top of all of that, online is not considered a place to treat corrections seriously.

I think you’d find a lot of newsrooms who fit the above description.

But what of the Express’s recent unpaid intern? After spending months proofreading and laying out pages, did Hettinga find herself staring down the barrel of a correction?

She tried to recall a mistake of her own: “I want to say I messed up something in the calendar… like I changed it from AP style to non-AP style, but I can’t remember exactly what it was… but it was caught before it went to press. So in the short time I was there I didn’t have a printed correction—woo hoo! But I’m sure I made another mistake that wasn’t caught.”

Correction of the Week

THE AUSTRALIAN yesterday published an opinion piece by Glenn Milne (“PM a lost cause for warring unions”, Page 14) that included assertions about the conduct of the Prime Minister.

The Australian acknowledges these assertions are untrue.

The Australian also acknowledges no attempt was made by anyone employed by, or associated with, The Australian to contact the Prime Minister in relation to this matter.
The Australian unreservedly apologises to the Prime Minister and to its readers for the publication of these claims. — The Australian

Ends today: If you'd like to help CJR and win a chance at one of
10 free print subscriptions, take a brief survey for us here.

Craig Silverman is the editor of RegretTheError.com and the author of Regret The Error: How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech. He is also the editorial director of OpenFile.ca and a columnist for the Toronto Star.