More corrections doesn’t mean more errors

You may have noticed that there are often corrections or clarifications published on page 3. I’ve had a few emails recently commenting about this, and drawing the conclusion that we’re getting more things wrong. Today I want to correct that assumption.

When I was starting in journalism and someone pointed out an error in a story, reporters usually went to great lengths to avoid having to correct the mistake. It was common practice to ‘‘fix’’ errors by writing another story and putting the correct information in that second story – a process which meant the original mistake was never acknowledged and declared to the reading public.

Fortunately, times have changed and we now take a proactive approach. That’s why you’re seeing more corrections and clarifications: because we’re being transparent with you about every mistake we make, and we’re fixing even the smallest mistakes. You might have seen in Thursday’s paper that we published a correction because we called the former All Blacks captain Ritchie, instead of Richie, McCaw.

Of course, we want to get it right first time, and our reporters and editors know to triple-check everything they write. But we are human beings and mistakes will slip through, despite our best efforts. Sometimes, people supply us with incorrect information. Other times, situations change between writing and publication.

Our default now is always to clarify and correct when needed. No more burying the corrections.

Stuff’s editorial code of practice says: ‘‘We are committed to correcting errors as quickly as practicable, and to being transparent about disclosing our mistakes.’’

Its corrections and clarifications policy can be viewed at www.stuff. co.nz/about-stuff, and we publish a running list of all corrections and clarifications, in addition to the disclosures published in the paper, and online on the story itself.

This approach to corrections is now best-practice in the United

States, where respected media outlets adopt a correct-everything approach (and sometimes even have to correct a correction).

The US-based Trust Project says media outlets can show their commitment to fairness and accuracy by publishing corrections or clarifications as promptly as possible.

A 2018 report from Gallup and The Knight Foundation found that almost 90 per cent of respondents said the two things most likely to engender trust in news organisations were an outlet’s commitment to accuracy and to quickly and openly correcting mistakes.

I keep a running list of errors coming from the Wellington newsroom, and I’m happy to tell you that the number of stories requiring a correction or clarification has dropped steadily this year. So if you see corrections on page 3, please know it’s because we’re being more transparent, not because we’re getting more wrong.