Stanley has been responsible for nine corrections so far this year. By my count in Nexis, she had fourteen corrections in 2008, twelve in 2007, and fifteen in 2006. Averaging just over a correction a month is not something to be proud of. But that’s still better than before she attracted so much attention. Stanley had twenty-three corrections in 2005, the year everyone noticed her predilection for error, and twenty-six in 2004. Perhaps the decline in corrections between 2005 and 2006 was in part due to the attention focused on her.
Given this week’s correction, however, I have to conclude that scrutiny alone isn’t enough to solve the problem.
A couple of years ago, I was told by a Times editor that the union contract allows managers to bring up a reporter’s correction rate during a performance review. Given the attention her errors have attracted, I assume Stanley has been spoken to about this. Maybe it was another factor that caused her drop in corrections in 2006. Unfortunately, the truth is that actions taken by her and the paper haven’t been enough.
I don’t know the circumstances that led to this week’s errors. But if you’re Alessandra Stanley, you simply can’t make mistakes like these in a single article. I have to assume she takes accuracy seriously, and not just because she knows Gawker is paying attention. But whatever system she has for checking her work isn’t sufficient. The same goes for how the copy desk is handling her articles. The Times can let her twist in the wind with errors like these, or realize this situation is hurting the organization and come up with a training program that helps her stop making simple factual errors at such an alarming rate.
There’s a problem here, and it’s as much about the organization as it is about Alessandra Stanley.
Correction of the Week
“An interview purporting to be with Banksy in last Saturday’s Guide (One last thing … , 18 July, page 98, the Guide) was, it transpires, conducted with someone impersonating the graffiti artist. We apologise to Banksy for this error and for any offence and inconvenience caused.” - The Guardian
Good criticism . . . especially since certain news organizations boast about the reliability of the information in their pages.
In my field, when we got plans with easily-avoided errors in them from a design firm, the saying was "Fire the drafter; kill the checker".
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 12:17 PM
Where was the Copy Desk, and where were her editors....
Is the Times in that much trouble on the desk.....?
#2 Posted by George Rubei, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 12:28 PM
Wow, I noticed an error back in March in an article she wrote on CBS comedies, but I didn't realize it was just one among many! http://elizs.tumblr.com/search/stanley
Does the NY Times think that a TV critic doesn't need editing?
#3 Posted by elizs, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 12:57 PM
George Rubei is correct. While Stanley deserves every bit of criticism that's being leveled at her, the glaring omission from this piece is the question of why none of these scores of errors were caught by the copy desk, or the section editor, or any other editor on staff who might have been reading the paper between editions.
#4 Posted by ej, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 01:32 PM
I think you mean she mistook truthiness for trustiness. oops.
#5 Posted by sf, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 01:54 PM
Top reason for Cronkite correction: Bill Keller not available, Helen Keller filling in.
#6 Posted by KRmudgeon, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 03:06 PM
Copy editors are the institutional memory of a newspaper--people who would be expected to fix errors of fact. I wonder whether the Times, like the WA Post and other newspapers, has cut back on the number of copy editors to the point where there is little or no historical perspective For example, mistaking UP for UPI or failing to spot at least of the many errors in this article, leading to a thorough look at each and every date.
#7 Posted by HGO, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 04:00 PM
Did The Times reduce its copy desk staff the day Ms. Stanley began writing about television? I am, however, less concerned with the errors she makes regularly covering a medium she obviously never watches than with commiting them in an obituary, Walter Cronkite's or anyone else's.
#8 Posted by cantacuzenas, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 04:53 PM
It's not like the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination date is in a famous U2 song or anything, either.
Of course, he wasn't killed in the "early morning" as they sing, but still...
#9 Posted by jojo, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 05:04 PM
What about the people who write on more important matters? Even alleged liberals like Maureen
AntoinetteDowd and Frankly That'sRich make embarrassing mistakes about Democrats and Republicans both. And then we have George Will, proponent of the scientific philosophy of Illogical Negativism. (To which he will say, 'Nuh-uh.')#10 Posted by hf, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 05:06 PM
When one considers that we are celebrating the 40th ANNIVERSARY of the moon landing, that one shuold have only required grabbing the nearest newspaper at hand.
#11 Posted by DrBear, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 05:31 PM
Makes you wonder whether the desk would have caught it if she misspelled Cronkite. Clearly she's capable of such an embarrassing error.
I'm sure the Times like most newspapers has cut back on copy editors, but some of this stuff - checking dates - are staples of editing. It's shocking that the moon landing, considering the 40th anniversary was in the news when Cronkite died, and MLK's date of assassination got through.
#12 Posted by MG, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 06:59 PM
Let's just call it the "Reign of Error."
#13 Posted by Wayne Myers, CJR on Fri 24 Jul 2009 at 08:44 PM
I can't believve she's still employed. If I hired someone to produce a product, and it was defective that many times, that person would be gone very soon.
#14 Posted by Carlos, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 06:27 AM
Sad. It's hard to believe she's still employed. Why someone would want to hire a "writer" who took such little pride in her work is beyond me. I'd have fired her.
#15 Posted by Carlos, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 06:29 AM
What makes this worse is that she probably does not file a whole lot of stories under tight deadlines, no hurry-up work. One year, 26 corrections? One every two weeks? You have to consider that she probably only writes two or three pieces a week, so that's a ratio of one correction per 4 or 5 stories. If she was at a small paper, where reporters are expected to file something every day, often two a day, such a ratio wouldn't make probationary employment. She must be the Guild shop steward, easier to keep her than go through the legal challenges of firing her.
#16 Posted by Bill, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 12:48 PM
There is no excuse for that many easily verifiable errors to appear in the obituary of a 92-year-old man who had been seriously ill for months. Stanley didn't have to write it while crouching over her laptop in a tent in Afghanistan as her power source flickered on and off. She wasn't rushing from press conference to prison trying to piece together a breaking corruption story and get it in before deadline. She had the reference assets of the New York Times at her fingertips and months of time to ensure the obituary was as accurate as possible.
But how does an educated citizen of the West, journalist or not, get the date of Martin Luther King's assassination wrong? Or the date of the Apollo 11 moon landing? Or the spelling of "Telstar"? It goes beyond simple sloppiness: even a journalist who doesn't fact-check should have those facts ground into her mind. Even if she doesn't - I mean, all she'd have to do is crack open a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica or a good almanac.
#17 Posted by Charlene, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 01:19 PM
It probably helps that she's BFF with Maureen Dowd.
#18 Posted by Melissa, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 05:18 PM
Plus, where was the copydesk? it doesn't excuse Stanley's sloppiness, but especially if you know a reporter is error-prone, you check his or her facts. This is not New Yorker-style obsessiveness, just quick Googling. It wouldn't have taken long to fix those errors.
#19 Posted by Melissa, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 05:24 PM
Yes, the Times has made cuts on its copy desks. But seeing as this is a columnist, I'm betting it's one or two scenarios:
1) Copy desk is told that, as a columnist, she should only be lightly edited, and only for style, etc., so that her "voice" won't be lost. Possibly, her column is not even included in the normal editing process.
2) Copy desk sees rash of errors in first column, tries to get them fixed, is rebuked for ruining her "voice," decides to do what they're told and let it through, wincing at some of the bigger humdingers.
It would take brass ones for No. 2 to happen, but with the rate of corrections being identified, and at a place where layoffs have taken place, those routine factual errors wouldn't have gotten through even the greenest of copy editors unless it was being done to prove a point.
#20 Posted by Another Take, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 05:57 PM
A quick look at Stanley's wikipedia page might enlighten us as to why she's tolerated at the New York Times. It's a big problem in journalism that class and social position often trump reporting and talent.
"Stanley is a daughter of Timothy W. Stanley, an authority on defense policy who served in the 1960's as assistant to Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara for NATO force planning and then as a defense adviser in the United States mission to NATO,[14] and Nadia Leon Stanley.
Stanley was previously married to Michael Specter,[15] a former reporter for the Washington Post, The New York Times and The New Yorker.
Stanley is a 1977 graduate of Harvard University where her uncle was a trustee.[15]"
#21 Posted by Jon C, CJR on Sat 25 Jul 2009 at 07:09 PM
Let's just look at it this way. The reporter is the first line of defense. If he/she can't take the time to check the facts before shipping it over for an edit, don't expect anyone else to. And it just may be that she's burned so many people at the Times with her attitude and errors in the past that her last lines of defense don't care enough about the quality of the product to protect her. I can tell you this: at 95% of other newspapers, she would have been placed on probation or canned a long time ago. Or, ironically, shuttled to the copydesk as pusnishment. I worked for newspapers in the past where reporters who erred - for one reason or another -were banished to the copy desk.
#22 Posted by levi54, CJR on Sun 26 Jul 2009 at 11:33 PM
The training program you suggest should be for the whole staff. The first lesson is to fire her.
#23 Posted by Mel Opotowsky, CJR on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 01:51 PM
Good piece except for:
"I have to assume she takes accuracy seriously, and not just because she knows Gawker is paying attention."
Based on what evidence?
I'd have to assume, based on the facts of her case, that she takes it not seriously at all.
#24 Posted by Robt Vesco, Jr, CJR on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 05:49 PM
Does the copy desk get no blame at all for this? The NYTimes has, or should have, fact-checkers. Where are they? Some of these errors were ridiculously obvious and a good copy editor would caught many of them, or at least checked them. It's easy. Just Google it--at the very least.
#25 Posted by Dan Smith, CJR on Mon 27 Jul 2009 at 07:58 PM
Perhaps the copy desk has caught scores more errors than the ones that made it into publication. While those mistakes should have been caught by copy editors, the chronic offender should be responsible for her own work, as well.
#26 Posted by SG, CJR on Tue 28 Jul 2009 at 09:03 PM
back in the old days of newspapering, a writer-reporter didn't live who could override the red grease pencil of a copy editor -- so long as the news editor (that'll be me) was able to draw breath. there was also a stealth wall protecting editorial from any outside force -- be it the business side of the business -- or mom, or dad, or any other entity.
but, that was back in the old days. and yes, it appears the copy desk suffers early during our nation's newspaper attrition.
#27 Posted by william of san antonio, CJR on Sat 1 Aug 2009 at 07:44 PM
Interesting. I read a review of Stanley's in which she said a scene in a new cop show was derivative of a scene in "The Wire." Close, but no cigar: It was derivative of a scene in "Homicide: Life on the Street."
Oh well. They were both David Simon shows, so maybe that's good enough for The Times.
#28 Posted by lisa, CJR on Sun 2 Aug 2009 at 02:06 PM
Quoting the article above:
"Stanley had twenty-three corrections in 2005, the year everyone noticed her predilection for error, and twenty-six in 2004. Perhaps the decline in corrections between 2005 and 2006 was in part due to the attention focused on her."
In fact, the reason for Stanley's decline in corrections between 2005 and 2006 was made clear in an August 1 article addressing her error filled Cronkite obituary, The decline was not because she was paying more attention to detail, it was because the NYT responded to her error rate by assigning a special copy editor to her for fact checking.
In the August 1 article, NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt states: "...Stanley was the cause of so many corrections in 2005 that she was assigned a single copy editor responsible for checking her facts. Her error rate dropped precipitously..." - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/opinion/02pubed.html
Stanley's writing didn't magically get more accurate in 2005. The NYT simply assigned a special baby-sitter to take care of her. That baby-sitter was later promoted to a different job and Stanley wound up on her own again - at least until this latest error filled article hit the paper.
#29 Posted by Brad S, CJR on Mon 3 Aug 2009 at 05:23 AM
The NY Times' Public Editor covered this in the Aug. 2 edition and noted that Stanley's work had become so error-prone she was assigned her own copy editor for a while. So her sloppiness was rewarded. Now that she's back on her own, however, the errors have returned. I sense a real prima donna situation here, where Stanley is deemed above the facts. And remember, we don't see how many errors the copy desk HAS corrected - they're checking for grammar, style, usage, redundancies and inconsistencies, as well as just awkward writing. But copy editing is seldom noticed unless it's not done. For all we know, her original copy might read, "Whats the capitol of Nebraska and whose it's governor." Including the lack of a question mark, that short sentence has five grammar and usage errors. We don't realize that it first looked like that when we read: What is the capital of Nebraska and who's its governor? And this is BEFORE having to check facts that should ultimately be the responsibility of the authors if they consider themselves to be true journalists. With Stanley, apparently every fact from the large to the small is guilty until proven innocent, and her work is pure fiction until fact-checked by an overworked copy editor.
#30 Posted by DD, CJR on Mon 3 Aug 2009 at 06:33 PM
Mr Silverman
I came across your article by accident and read it with interest. May I point out that the para beginning "But when you're a critic . . ." apparently has the grammatical error "these kind". I think it shuld be "these kinds" or "this kind". I mention it only because it seemed a bit ironic under the circumstance.
I don't wish to be added to the comments, and I wouldn't want you to think I was reading the article to aha! you. I agree with you entirely.
I also think that only Allah is perfect, but it doesn't excuse the rest of us from trying.
Yours sincerely
gloria pendlay
#31 Posted by gloria pendlay, CJR on Wed 5 Aug 2009 at 12:06 PM
@lisa
If you're referring to a well-known scene involving a copy machine as a lie detector, that was used both in Homicide and in The Wire -- and is a real police tactic anyway -- and was recently featured in the show The Unusuals. I bring this up only because the topic -- and the New York Times, surprisingly enough -- came up in a class I was taking.
If you're referring to something else, then I am completely off the mark and apologize
#32 Posted by DC, CJR on Thu 6 Aug 2009 at 12:03 PM
"Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches."
Teddy Duchamp!
#33 Posted by KdNicewanger, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 01:57 PM
She is a phenomenal and creative reporter. That's why she's been there for so long. Everyone makes errors and its more ridiculous that all of these posts and criticisms and blogs exist and flourish when all they really do is cite some errors. She's not going anywhere and you all should stop being so repulsively cynical.
#34 Posted by phish10786, CJR on Mon 5 Oct 2009 at 01:02 PM
What a lot pf pedantic nonsense. Ms. Stanely is one of the best and funniest writers on the Times. Who cares if she makes a few errors as long as she is entertaining,amusing and politically incorrect on a newspapre that needs all of theses qualities.
#35 Posted by R. H. Schnadig, CJR on Mon 20 Dec 2010 at 04:06 PM