A fifth-grade error from our Paper of Record
From the corrections section of the Week In Review section of today's
Times:
A map last Sunday showing how states are divided on several social issues misidentified New Mexico, which has no laws on gay marriage. The state that was labeled is Arizona; New Mexico is its neighbor to the east. (Go to Article)
Why, why, why do basic errors like this crop into our "paper of record"?
Where I'm Coming From
Just a couple of notes to let people know my perspective.
I'm a reader, not a journalist.
I'm not an authority; I'm a beginner. I'm trying to understand where journalism is going and where it should be going. I've had no schooling or experience in newspapers; I just care about them because good ones are important to me and to my knowledge of what's going on.
I don't think blogs will make newspapers obsolete. Newspapers may very well lose the paper, but well-researched, well-edited compendiums of timely information on world events, local affairs, business, sports--even the crossword and the funnies--aren't going anywhere.
Will newspapers change? Hell, they've already changed a great deal. The best news web sites have a rich mixture of proprietary and external content; are updated continuously; and have polls, comment sections, and other ways for the readership to interact with the paper. Nothing about these developments is bad, in my opinion.
For example, how nice is it to be able to log onto the Times web site and get an up-to-date status of the
fourth round of the NFL draft, instead of being stuck with the partial results in the "Final" edition that was delivered this morning?
On Sources
OK, let's talk about sources for a minute. When journalists preach objectivity, the first area to scrutinize is the source of a story.
A fact: people who don't have something to gain from a journalist do not make themselves available as sources. It takes time and energy and can be risky to career and reputation.
A source may very well believe that a wrong has been committed and he/she is obligated to bring that to light. Or the source feels he/she has been victimized and seeks redress or revenge.
A source may have more selfish objectives, such as discrediting another party (see: Scooter Libby and Joseph Wilson) or bringing favorable light on themselves.
In any event, by having a strong motive to speak out for some purpose means that a source is inherently biased.
A journalist may respond, "but we don't rely on a single source. We get corroborating sources, seek out opposing views, have editors and colleagues review what we've written. This process leaches out any subjectivity and leaves only facts."
OK, fine. But we all know, don't we, that the primary source for a story shapes it? The other sources almost never cause the story to veer away from that basic shape?
Coming soon: the tyranny of the anonymous source, and why it may be essential anyway.
The teeny-tiny size of Corrections articles in newspapers...
Ever notice how small Corrections articles are? And how neatly they're tucked into an inside page?
Also notice that each of the corrections notes are of equal weight. Unless the
Times makes a real whopper, such as the Jayson Blair scandal or the Judith Miller fiasco (in which case an Editor's Note ensues), their corrections items are equally banal and understated. (I'll list some of the more interesting examples of this in future posts.)
Is it possible that the editors feel they're being sober and factual when they publish a correction, when, in fact, they are downplaying their mistakes?
Attack of the Killer Spellchecker!
From yesterday's
Wall Street Journal:
THE MIDDLE SEAT column in Tuesday's Personal Journal misspelled the name of the country Cyprus as Cypress.
Introduction; or, a manifesto
For someone who’s blogging about point of view in the media, I should do what I can to communicate my own point of view. First of all, I find newspapers and other types of news media vital to my world. I read newspapers and news web sites every day. They are where I learn much of what I need to do my job, make decisions for myself and my family, and to be more informed.
The value of television (network and cable) news is diminishing rapidly, spiraling down to the “crisis” of the moment stories. Perhaps that’s a conversation for another day.
As useful as the media are—especially, to me, papers like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and my local paper, the Patriot News of Harrisburg, PA (a pretty good paper), and their associated web sites—the desperate clinging to the claim of objectivity has always felt a bit odd.
Are these reporters robots? Are their editors? They are looking for stories, aren’t they? A simple agglomeration of undisputed facts wouldn’t get a lot of people to subscribe, never mind buy off the newsstand. Haven’t some of the most significant accomplishments of American newspapers been the result of a single-minded pursuit of a story?
And doesn’t a story need a point of view?
Here’s a question to chew on. Is there such a thing as an objective point of view?
Discuss amongst yourselves. Or post reactions below.
All I Want for Christmas...
See the following interesting correction from today's
Times.
Because of an editing error, an obituary yesterday about the Italian film star Alida Valli misstated the origin of "The Third Man," the movie in which she made her most famous Hollywood appearance. The story was initially a screenplay by Graham Greene, not a novel; he later adapted it as a novel. In addition, The obituary also misidentified the composer of the song "All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth." It was Don Gardner, not Ms. Valli's husband Oscar de Mejo. (
Go to Article)
How did they identify Oscar de Mejo (cited as a
surrealist painter and composer) as the creator of a kitschy Christmas song?
Now that's surreal.
