Comments on: Can newspapers fix old errors?

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The content map and corrections

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The content map and corrections — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:26:40 +0000

[...] articles. Suggested solutions range from killing the old articles, which Hoyt considers, to correcting them to relying on the web and search. I agree most with that last solution, which comes from taguru [...]

By: contentious.com - Fixing Old News: How About a Corrections Wiki?

contentious.com - Fixing Old News: How About a Corrections Wiki? — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:39:25 +0000

[...] Aug. 28, Salon.com co-founder Scott Rosenberg posted a thoughtful response to a Aug. 26 column by New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt: When Bad News Follows [...]

By: Amy Gahran

Amy Gahran — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:56:58 +0000

Great post, Scott. I recommended it over on Poynter’s E-Media Tidbits today — where I discussed an option. How about a moderated corrections wiki? Seems like, in itself, that could be a business opp as well as a way to demonstrate a news org’s commitment to accuracy.

Check it out and tell me what you think

http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=31&aid=129239

Thanks

- Amy Gahran

By: contentious.com - links for 2007-08-29

contentious.com - links for 2007-08-29 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:21:30 +0000

[...] Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard » Blog Archive » Can newspapers fix old errors? “If the NYT is truly the “paper of record,” and its archives deserve high Google rank by virtue of their unimpeachability, the paper should divert some of the $ it will take in thanks to that rank & look into reader complaints about old articles.” (tags: history corrections newspapers search findability ethics business reputation tidbits+fodder media+evolution) [...]

By: James Birchall

James Birchall — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:05:15 +0000

I think a rethinking of the presentation of old material is in order. It’s not enough to simply dump out all that old data, tack a date on it and then leave it be. Information is dynamic. So is knowledge.

I propose that online advertisements in newspaper articles remain as a property of the article. That way, any old articles that suddenly become popular again, re-generate revenue.

I propose secondly that newspapers start thinking beyond “Today’s Breaking News” and tie in “Today’s news” with yesterday’s stories. How often have we seen an issue make the news, fade into obscurity, then re-emerge with some new information? If you design the news right, you can drill down or up through stories and explore as much of the historical record as you want from the newspaper’s point of view.

Corrections then end up being new stories on old news. You preserve both the historical record and convey new information that is pertinent to understanding that old information while driving revenue from people that are interested in old stories. Plus old news is clearly marked as being old and is shown in context with newer understanding.

By: Tish Grier

Tish Grier — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:18:19 +0000

One of the keys to fixiing this problem (as you note, Scott) is money. The other is resources. The Times should indeed employ people (and pay them accordingly–not intern rates) to comb through articles and link them to either notations on corrections or to follow-up articles. A simple “Update” section at the top, with links (like many bloggers will do) will direct people over to better, more reliable or current information. But the links have to be on the top, not the bottom, as many people give up or get stuck on the salacious before they get to the bottom.

Yet, if no one’s willing to pony up the money for the necessary staff to do this, then Google’s new comments feature may end up making Google the “paper of record”– because of its quicker correction rate (albeit one that could result in heavy p/r flacking as much as correcting) and, probably, its pages higher search ranks.

By: Steve Boriss

Steve Boriss — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:05:30 +0000

The expectation set in the early 20th century that newspapers could deliver "truth" was a false one, and we must now let the truth that they cannot prevail. Legendary editor/columnist Walter Lippmann established this "scientific model" of journalism that we have been using in his 1920 book "Liberty and the News." But he himself retracted this idea two years later in his book "Public Opinion," where he concluded that the only thing journalists can really do is signalize events -- that truth was the domain of think tanks and historians. (Steve Boriss, The Future Of News)

By: Martin Stabe » links for 2007-08-29

Martin Stabe » links for 2007-08-29 — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:21:49 +0000

[...] Scott Rosenberg’s Wordyard: Can newspapers fix old errors? “If the Times is truly the “paper of record” that it has always positioned itself as, and its archives deserve high Google rank by virtue of their unimpeachability, then … it will … fund an operation to look into reader complaints about old articl (tags: nytimes archives ethics journalism online) [...]

By: Brian Slesinsky

Brian Slesinsky — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 06:31:16 +0000

A quick fix would be to put a disclaimer at the top of the article, Wikipedia-style:

“Some of the facts in this article have been disputed; …”

Or perhaps let the person post a response at the end of the article.