Of course, all this doesn’t mean that news organizations don’t have a responsibility to ensure that their own content is accurate, and it doesn’t mean that they should throw in the towel when it comes to correcting others. But it does mean that we know is that the orthodox journalistic approach to correcting misperceptions is ineffective, and we should be looking for a better way to accomplish the task. And if there are any strategies that might help, everyone who produces and consumes serious journalism has an interest in uncovering them. After all, the ability to convey a basic fact is not just about the outcome of any particular policy debate. As Nyhan put it, “It’s a larger question about what’s the actual effect of journalism on readers.”
08:20 AM - August 14, 2009
The Wrong Stuff
What we don’t know about how to correct misinformation
16 women whose digital startups deserve Vox-level plaudits - A look at the media entrepreneurs who aren’t grabbing headlines
Why was ‘Dasani’ shut out of the Pulitzers? - 5 problems with The New York Times’ ambitious, influential series on the life of one homeless Brooklyn girl
The AP downplays its Obamacare scoop - Repeal on deductible caps marks another step in The Great Cost Shift
The enduring pull of mag covers - Why do magazine cover images still hold so much cultural power in this decline-of-print era?
Michael Wolff’s digital media bloopers - The Newser founder trolls (other) digital-news companies
Email blasts from CJR writers and editors
How did the clothes you’re wearing get to you? We trace the human cost of the Bangladeshi garment industry in video, words and pictures
Fantastic letter in The Times
How do you tell your family and friends?
A look behind the secretive lab’s closed doors
Despite the bridge scandal, Chris Christie’s state is relatively transparent and accountable. CJR’s Greg Marx talks to Gordon Witkin
Who Owns What
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.