AFTER DEADLINE
In some respects, we reduced our error rate during 2003
By Anne Harpham
In April, I promised readers a year-end accounting of our newsroom's progress in reducing the rate of errors in The Advertiser.
We had just changed our policy on the form of published corrections, and we had begun a better tracking of what caused them. Before April 20, our corrections had specified who made an error — a reporter, editor, page designer, artist, photographer or news source.
That was not to cast blame, but to identify the point at which an error was made. However, after lengthy discussion, we decided to stop that practice because most readers are less interested in how we made a mistake than in getting it corrected. And more importantly, we believe that everyone on the staff "owns" every mistake in the paper. The change affirmed that all of us have a role in maintaining the newspaper's credibility.
The good news is we did reduce our error rate somewhat this year — although there are still too many mistakes that could have been avoided.
On the last day of 2003, a reader reminded me of how costly these mistakes can be. An editorial that morning on the human cost of the war in Iraq cited numbers provided by columnist David Hackworth, a well-known retired Army colonel. We identified him as a retired Marine colonel.
That error in no way changed the point of the editorial or the relevant facts within it. However, the point made by the caller, one of several readers who phoned or e-mailed me about the mistake, was that it made him distrust how carefully and thoroughly we research our material. It's a point that should be well taken by every member of our staff.
In the first six months of 2003, we averaged 1.8 corrections a day. In the last half of the year, we were able to bring that down to an average of 1.6 a day.
Of the 610 corrections we published last year (a number on par with 2002), about half involved errors of fact.
Most of those factual errors occurred because the reporters or editors involved misunderstood something they were told or had read.
Some errors were just plain puzzling, such as when we said the Civil War started in 1860 (the correct date is 1861) or when we reported well-known British rocker Ozzy Osbourne's hometown as Birmingham, Alabama (it's Birmingham, England). A brain lapse on the part of everyone who saw those errors before they were published is the only explanation I can offer.
We goofed closer to home, too. In maps and in photos, we managed to botch local geography, putting towns in the wrong place, and in a Travel package, misidentifying a part of the Kaua'i coastline.
On occasion, we misstated dates or starting times for local events — particularly painful errors because we know the published misinformation sometimes sent readers out to find locked doors where they had expected to find performances.
Almost one-fifth of last year's errors were wrong or misspelled names. This type of error really makes us cringe, but that's not much comfort to the people we misidentify. There is rarely any excuse for getting a name wrong. Sometimes, a trusted source will give us an incorrect spelling, but most times a wrong name is just the result of sloppiness on our part.
There are some errors it is difficult to avoid. Just over 10 percent of our published corrections in 2003 were the result of incorrect information from outside sources.
In addition to the change in wording of our corrections in April, we instituted a process in which every staff member involved in a published correction is asked to describe briefly in writing how the error occurred and how it could have been avoided.
As a result of this extra attention, we've made changes in our processes and policies.
For example, we have reinforced the rule on checking telephone numbers. Every reporter and editor is supposed to call numbers before they are published. Our goal is to have no wrong phone numbers. We didn't achieve that in 2003, but I was pleasantly surprised in reviewing last year's corrections to see we had relatively few phone-number corrections — just 16. That said, we do recognize how inconvenient a wrong phone number is, and even a small number of such errors is unacceptable.
Sections of the paper that have seen a pattern in certain types of errors have instituted additional checking procedures or reinforced established policies.
It would be unfair to our staff not to emphasize the thousands of errors that are caught and corrected before they see print, all under deadline pressure. Those, of course, are the ones you don't see.
We remain committed to reducing the number of errors you do see, and improved accuracy will continue to be our goal in 2004.
Senior editor Anne Harpham is The Advertiser's reader representative. Reach her at 525-8033 or aharpham@honoluluadvertiser.com.
