How Journalists Report Errors on the Web

[icernet-admin at listserv.cddc.vt.edu]

In the January 19 New York Observer, Ron Rosenbaum posed a slew of questions
about how print and online media should approach the difficult job of
correcting errors that are discovered post-publication, then beseeched media
critics to come up with some rough standards. The more corrections, the
better? Without lowering evidentiary standards, Rosenbaum suggests,
journalists can alleviate the shame of error by approaching our work more as
a search for truth and less as a crusade to prove we're always right. In
this view, all assertions are provisional and necessarily subject to
reshaping as new facts, theories, and agendas emerge. In other words, it's
inevitable that mistakes will be made when we're gathering all the news
that's fit to print. Rosenbaum suggests that errors are more easily
correctable now that most stories, even those published in print editions,
also appear online-and more visible, now that bloggers are keeping watch.
Ironically, increased self-consciousness about the potential for error
increases a publication's credibility.

Source:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/cotts.php