February 14, 2004
Comparing Our Recent Reporting Mistake With Our Stated Principles
Over in our lefthand sidebar, we have a link to some principles we consider to be our goals as we continue the experiment that this site represents.
In the interest of one of the most important over-arching ideals -- transparency -- it's incumbent upon us to do something of a post-mortem on the error. In this item, we will examine our mistake in light of a number of the principles listed on the page linked above.
Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. Obviously, the story as we originally reported it did not reflect the truth. The investigation referred to by Commissioner Leonard, as it turned out, was not the audit into activities at the Bureau of Licenses, but a look at housing inspectors inside the Office of Neighborhood Involvement. On this principle, we receive a failing mark.
Its essence is a discipline of verification. This goes directly to the heart of exactly how we managed to fail the previous principle. Once we noticed an apparent confluence of the timeframe mentioned by Leonard for the investigation to which he referred and the Bureau of Licenses audit, the proper next move would have been to ask Leonard if the two were one and the same. Even if he simply had said they were not the same, without elaborating, that would have been answer enough at least to prevent us from mis-reporting the story as being about the Bureau of Licenses. On this principle, we receive a failing mark.
Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true. While we in fact did believe that what we reported was true, the fact that it was based on a calculated assumption, compounded by a lack of verification, undercuts that belief. In a sense, all we had when we compared the timeframes and noticed a clear similarity was a hypothesis, not a theory -- and one we failed to test by asking Leonard a simple follow-up question. On this principle, we receive a failing mark.
Publicly correct any misinformation. Had we not been out of the house when Leonard posted his comment clarifying his reference and correcting our error, our correction would have been online almost immediately. As it was, it at least was posted within a few hours of Leonard's comment. A note was placed at the top of the item indicating the error, and pointing readers to an update at the end of the original item spelling out the correct information. In addition, the item's headline was changed to indicate the presence of a major correction. On this principle, we receive a passing mark.
Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry. This is standard practice for us, but in some sense is put to the test in a situation as this one. Some would argue in favor of simply deleting the original item, to be replaced by a correct one (perhaps with an explanatory note referring to the previous mistaken article). To us, it is more important that the original item remain in public view, so the mistake is apparent to the reader. We adhered to this approach in our method of correcting the error. On this principle, we receive a passing mark.
There is no question that this incorrect reporting opens the door to credibility issues in the future. While we have always argued that this is an experiment, that at the very least requires that when a mistake is made, it is not only corrected as soon as possible, but examined afterwards -- publicly.
Any readers with questions or observations on this instance of incorrect reporting, the issues it raises, and/or our responses to it are invited to post comments here.
Comments (11)
Randy Leonard on 14 Feb 2004
B!X-
This comment is a first for me.
You are way over reacting to your response that misunderstood my earlier comments that you associated with the Bureau of Licenses rather than the Housing Inspectors Portlanders have been hearing about in the Oregonian and Channel 6 today (However, B!X had it on his site before either of those sources captured what was really going on .... albeit cryptically).
While you may have misconnected my comments on your site to be related to the Bureau of Licenses instead of the Housing Inspection unit at the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, it was due to no fault of your own. I was intentionally vague (a little too much so) and did not want to say so much so as to tip our hand on what was going on in our investigation of the alleged improprieties in the Housing Section.
Readers of your site may be aware that I have had an increasing tendency to post breaking news on your site before the bigger media has an opportunity to publish something I am working on.
The reason is simple. Your reporting is fair, accurate and unusually in depth (citation: the analysis of the liquor ordinance....extraordinairly concise and accurate).
I appreciate your site and it's objective reporting. However, to be sure, you have kicked my ass on more than one occasion...very effectively I might add.
As long as you continue your policy of being forthright and honest, I intend to continue my policy of going to your site frequently to give your readers the first "heads up" on issues that they may be interested in.....
Commissioner Randy Leonard
Worldwide Pablo on 14 Feb 2004
WWP agrees with the commissioner. While your attention to the "credo" is to be admired, you *are* being too tough on yourself.
Trust us: Your "street cred" is intact.
The One True b!X on 14 Feb 2004
While you may have misconnected my comments on your site to be related to the Bureau of Licenses instead of the Housing Inspection unit at the Office of Neighborhood Involvement, it was due to no fault of your own. I was intentionally vague (a little too much so) and did not want to say so much so as to tip our hand on what was going on in our investigation of the alleged improprieties in the Housing Section.
While that may be so, it's my job (as it were) to verify my assumptions, not jump to conclusions. While the vagueness of the original comment may have sparked the chain of events, it's still my responsibility to double-check what I'm about to assert before I assert it.
I suppose I would consider it "taking it seriously" rather than "over-reacting" -- and this likely is a combination of (1) my own personal sense of where the lines of proper reporting should be drawn here, and (2) a meta-response to the ways in which traditional media tends to overly-bury their mea culpas.
Better, it seems to me, to err on the side of a full-on analysis of any error than to only correct and move on.
Randy Leonard on 14 Feb 2004
B!X-
I have been in public life for a long time. I have never had this kind of discussion with a reporter before.
It is to your credit that you consider these issues as seriously as you do.
I only wish all in the media were as self conscious.
Commissioner Randy Leonard
Jack Bog on 15 Feb 2004
Does this mean I'm supposed to stop making stuff up?
But seriously, folks, I'm not sure leaving the erroneous post up there and surrounding it with "correction - correction - correction" is all that great. I agree that one needs to alert readers who read the incorrect post that it was wrong. But for those who haven't read it yet, why bother them with the sordid details?
How's this for an idea? Edit the post to correct it, put an unobtrusive asterisk or something on the head to show it was altered, and then set up some sort of sidebar box that folks who are interested can click on to take them to an account of the erroneous post, the correction, the explanation, the apology, etc.
I'd also say that if the correction is not substantive, you should be able to do it without notice.
The One True b!X on 15 Feb 2004
But for those who haven't read it yet, why bother them with the sordid details?
Because it's honest and is the most direct line to transparency.
I'd also say that if the correction is not substantive, you should be able to do it without notice.
Well. typographical errors I handle this way. And, technically, if I spot something minor but obvious (like the time I turned Verne Naito into Vince Naito) in the first few minutes after posting an item, I'll make the change and not worry about it.
But for larger issues, the reason for the choice to not edit/remove, but only add/explain is that in a medium where (1) everything is easily changed, and (2) one is not an established journalist, credibility has to be proven, rather than assumed. Therefore, every additional piece of information which supports credibility is important.
Of course, this varies, subjectively, from writer to writer, depending on their intent.
myrln on 15 Feb 2004
Your concerns here only enhance the integrity and credibility long ago established. Most news media (print at least) would bury such corrections in a 2-inch box somewhere inside the paper on the fold. (Electronic media never acknowledges any errors.)
Betsy on 15 Feb 2004
I echo the folks throwing you virtual flowers instead of bricks, and do think you're being too harsh on yourself.
However, I disagree with Jack when he suggests that corrections can be handled a bit more unobtrusively. One of the objections that's been thrown at digital media sources is the fact that it's overly malleable, and therefore, potentially less credible to the average consumer.
Posts/sites can be changed at will, and it's often difficult to find a permanent record of what was actually said and/or when it was said the first time.
If your goal is to counter this perception of malleability, then your current policy of flagging corrections and leaving original posts to stand in their entirety goes a long way towards doing just that.
no one in particular on 15 Feb 2004
I agree that it's no big deal, and I think the main reason is your wording:
This, presumably, would be a reference to the Bureau of Licenses.
It's immediately clear to everyone reading that you're doing a little bit of guesswork here. That's why you said presumably. Your guessing seemed logical enough to me, so I certainly don't fault you for being incorrect.
If you'd stated something as fact, this would be another matter entirely. But you didn't.
The One True b!X on 15 Feb 2004
It occurs to me now that you point that out: This would have all been less of an issue for me if I had simply added a question mark to the end of the item's headline when it was originally posted.
Gary Marschke on 16 Feb 2004
The keys to credibility are transparency and accountability. While it's a bit of a sad commentary that your high marks are such an unexpected and pleasant surprise, even the media need role models. Keep up the good work!