The new CJR survey on the practices of magazine Web sites (read it here!) contains lots of interesting information, but one of the most striking nuggets relates to online correction policies. According to the survey, forty-six percent of the magazines at which a print editor is in charge of online content reported that “major errors” are corrected with no notice to readers. For sites where a Web editor makes online content decisions, the figure (54 percent) is even higher.
The findings suggest that many magazine sites haven’t internalized a point made by, among others, CJR’s Craig Silverman: that “one practice that simply isn’t an option for responsible journalists is scrubbing—removing incorrect or outdated information from an online article without adding a correction, editor’s note, or some similar disclosure for readers.”
We want to know: Are you surprised by this data? More importantly, what do you expect from the news sources you read online when it comes to correcting, updating, or revising content? What sort of notification is sufficient—and are there instances in which it’s not required at all? Let us know in comments below.
I don't really consider the correction history of an article I read online. I expect it to be as correct as the providers can make it. I wouldn't object to scrubbing inconsequential errors, or even minor changes to stated data and statistics. I would expect a major correction to be noted, particularly if it cast the thesis of the article in doubt. In such a case, I would rather see the article updated to note both the original premise and the correction, rather than have the article deleted or updated to remove all indication the error ever occurred.
#1 Posted by Mike Hennessy, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 05:07 PM
While it's nice to see clean copy on the page, "major errors" should definitely be reported, not only for accountability, but for the sake of references to the incorrect information. The source should be held accountable for the mistake, not those who passed it on (especially when it's something not easily fact checked). I think minor changes could go unnoticed, or perhaps a link to "corrections made" is appropriate. After all, in print, corrections would be made separately, and in a later edition.
As for updates, I think notice is important for the sake of those referencing the original work. Both old and new additions should be available (and linked) so that some progression of an event or topic can be seen.
#2 Posted by David J Harvey, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 08:39 PM
Well, being a paranoid conservative who believes in a liberal media, I of course want to see when all those biased leftys have to backtrack, or scramble to cover up an inconvenient truth that made it past the ideological censors. It's a great insight into the psychology and politics of the newsroom.
The other alternative is having readers save screen shots and then exposing the underhanded moves for all the world to see. I think this practice is more fun, actually...
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 08:40 PM
Those under age 30 generally don't care about errors scrubbed or not from online copy. We're in a new age of cyberspaciness, where swift and sloppy are deemed "kewl." (Scrub "kewl" and make it "cool.") Keep this in mind too: we're in our third generation of whole-language graduates running print and online media and other businesses. That means we have people who never learned to write preaching to younger people who never learned to write. The best you can hope for is Spell-Check--sporadically. To paraphrase that famous line from BLAZING SADDLES: "Verbs? I don't need no stinking verbs!"
#4 Posted by Raymond James, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 11:20 PM