A website redesign is a major event for a news organization. Reuters recently unveiled a new website, and it occasioned blog posts from former editor-in-chief and current chairman of Thomson Reuters China David Schlesinger, and from Chrystia Freeland, the editor of Thomson Reuters Digital. She also introduced the #reutersrefresh hashtag to gather feedback from people.
That’s admittedly a pretty big deal for journalism geeks and Reuters’s online readers. But there was another redesign this week that earned considerably less fanfare, partly because it focused on a feature of news websites that remains largely ignored or nonexistent.
I’m referring to the fact that The New York Times changed its online corrections page. Exciting stuff, I know.
Prior to the redesign—well, perhaps “refresh” would be a more appropriate term— the page was updated daily to show that day’s corrections. It also included boilerplate text at the bottom that explained how people could report errors. That’s pretty much how the page has looked and worked since I started looking at it daily in 2004.
Then, to my surprise, it changed earlier this week.
The point of an online corrections page is to have a centralized place where readers can see the latest mistakes and corrections. It gives them the opportunity to discover if a recent article they read, or reporting they heard or saw, has been updated or corrected. It also provides a basic element of transparency. A dedicated page makes corrections more visible and accessible, and it increases the likelihood that people will receive the corrected information. After all, that’s the point of making correction in the first place. Yet corrections pages are the exception, not the rule.
Greg Brock, the Times senior editor who oversees corrections, said the refreshed page was worked on some time ago and recently received final approval to go live.
The new Times page features improvements that should be standard for any online corrections page. Rather than showing only that day’s corrections, it now links to the last seven days of corrections. The boilerplate text that provides the toll free phone number, e-mail, and fax number used to report errors is now higher up on the page. Below that, the page also lists a series of headlines and links to the most recently corrected articles. These changes make it easier to access additional recent corrections, easier to report errors, and easier to see the articles that were just corrected. The latter is increasingly important due to the pace of online news.
“As far as this tweaked Corrections link, I had complained—as had readers—that only one day of corrections was available when you clicked the link,” Brock said. “ So this change is merely to give an archive of the more recent corrections. That seemed like a basic function.”
It’s also encouraging that he said the page doesn’t constitute his vision for a true corrections homepage.
“This really isn’t a Corrections Home Page per se,” he said. “Certainly not the kind I have in mind. I have been trying to get that done forever—and we are inching toward it It would be a true Corrections Home Page—just as you find for all sections, like Sports, Business, etc.”
That sense of ambition for an online corrections page is unheard of. The reality is that most news organizations and news websites don’t offer a centralized corrections page. On the positive side of things, some of the organizations that offer a regularly updated corrections page that’s linked from the homepage include the Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post (well, kind of; see below), The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, the Toronto Star, the Chicago Tribune, ESPN, and the Houston Chronicle. There are others, though not many of them.
Other organizations may have corrections pages, but they are often buried within the site. Most don’t have anything resembling a corrections page. And a shocking number still don’t even add corrections to online articles. Then there are cases where corrections pages are left to collect dust or just disappear without notice.
- 1
- 2
As I've noted on a number of occasions, CJR would do well to have a transparent correction policy of its own, and more importantly, a clearly-labeled link, or permanent instructions on the homepage at the very least, leading to the obscure email address of the editors, who, if you are smart enough to email them, will sometimes deign to make a correction. Occasionally, of course, a lowly commenter can make a request in the comment stream successfully; but more commonly that noting of an error and request for a comment can sit on an unusedf comment stream for a week, or be buried by ideological loonies rantings.
Ryan Chittum is very gracious and diligent about correcting his errors. Others are less so, some contributors opt to completely ignore the request, and occasionally we encounter outright hostility. So, get your own house in order, please.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 12:53 PM
@James: Look closer... as of last month, there is a "Report an Error" button at the bottom of every article page on the site.
#2 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 01:03 PM
@Justin,
OMG! I hadn't seen that! Well done!
...I take back all the mean things I said about the long-suffering CJR crew.
Cheers.
#3 Posted by James, CJR on Fri 15 Jul 2011 at 01:25 PM
xrumer blast xrumer service backlink checker
seo advertising
#4 Posted by xrumer, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 06:26 PM
Thanks for this video¡I have been brain storming for something just like this and thanks to you I have what I was looking for and not all those spam looking links that make you want to click them just to see what they lead too¡my pet peave.
#5 Posted by free norton antivirus download, CJR on Sat 16 Jul 2011 at 08:19 PM
mostly voted dhwad
--
How To Clear Baby39s Throat Phlegm
#6 Posted by nitspsync, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 01:38 AM
I'm continuously amazed that new major journalistic players don't have corrections pages or visible corrections policies. Politico, DailyBeast, and GlobalPost all do not have corrections pages or disclosed policies, as far as I can tell.
I notified editors at GlobalPost two weeks ago about an error they made in referring to "Belgrade, Serbia in 1961" (in 1961, Belgrade was the capital of then-Yugoslavia), and they won't respond or correct the error. Also, earlier this year it took me a month to get the LA Times to correct a simple error in a story about a Cairo cafe. Just fix your errors, journos--publicly--and move on.
#7 Posted by Justin Martin, CJR on Sun 17 Jul 2011 at 11:33 AM
Your resource is actually outstanding. Keep going that way.
#8 Posted by cardaddy, CJR on Mon 18 Jul 2011 at 07:05 PM
If you ever have been interviewed and then read the results you become very skeptical of journalists.
So to keep the intelligence level up there is a clear need for very visible corrections of the most blatant errors.
#9 Posted by Henke, CJR on Thu 18 Aug 2011 at 04:19 PM