Summary: Corrections at the Kansas City Star have risen about 9% for far in 2006. We have found that the issue of newspaper corrections is not always a black & white issue, but often involves a variety of shades of gray. We gave our thoughts and a KC Star reporter responded.
READERS' REP COLUMN ON CORRECTIONS DOESN'T TELL WHOLE STORY
According to Derek Donovan, the Readers' Representative of the Kansas City Star (7/31), the newspaper has published 356 corrections so far in 2006, which is about a 9 percent increase compared to the same time last year. He noted the figure is based on 70,000 unique stories, photos and graphics (vs. about 60,000 the year before).
Donovan's column focused on the fact that the Star is quick to admit when it makes mistakes. However, while he made it sound like the Star genuinely wants to correct the record on any errors made in the paper, his column didn't tell the whole story.
In reality, sometimes mistakes are not corrected. Why? There are a number of reasons:
 | Reporters are human. Would you want every error you made printed in a newspaper for millions of readers to see? |
| Individuals---and especially businesses---frequently don't report errors for fear of repercussions (real or perceived) from reporters in the future. |
| Some reporters do not appreciate having their errors highlighted. |
| Many reporters' evaluations (and subsequent pay raises) are affected by the number of mistakes they are caught making. |
| Many businesses simply have errors (typos, misspellings, etc) corrected when they order reprints. |
Overall, newspapers have tried to deal with the difficult issue of correcting mistakes for more than a hundred years. No system is perfect, but there is much more to the process than a simply a reporter making a mistake and the newspaper making a correction.
A reporter at the Kansas City Star gave his thoughts on the BLC story (above):
"I hope it's helpful to point out that your item
about our corrections might have given people the wrong impression that we cover
our asses more than we actually do. You're absolutely right that reporters or
editors are highly embarrassed when we have to publish corrections. It's also
appropriately part of the territory we tread.
"It may be possible that sources are reluctant to report errors for fear of
retribution in subsequent coverage. I can honestly say they shouldn't feel that
way. A reporter or editor who used their position to exact some retribution
would, I honestly believe, be subject to pretty severe disciplinary action.
They'd probably get axed at the Star.
"... it's been my understanding that a Star
journalist can be fired for failing to correct a mistake that's been brought to
their attention. (I'll concede there are gray areas here -- especially where
source and reporter have an honest disagreement about the facts.)
"Indeed, corrections are a standard part of our yearly evaluation forms. As they
should be. It's been my experience -- and I've made my share of errors -- that
supervisors hold us to account for errors, but that they also factor in the
severity of the error and conditions under which it occurred.
"Please don't take this message as an offensive, because I'm a fan of your site
and I think it's healthy for other media (TV, The Pitch, blogs) to keep us
honest. And you perform a service in that regard. It just seemed that your
analysis springing from Derek's column suggested far flimsier standards than
I've known in my many years at the Star."