Make corrections a building block of trust with our step-by-step guide
As journalists, we care deeply about being accurate in our reporting and getting the facts right. We strive for this daily by fact-checking and having an editing process in which multiple people review a story, line by line. Sometimes stories even receive reviews by a legal or standards team.
Despite all of this work, we still sometimes get it wrong. That could mean a grammatical error or misspelled word, or it could mean something more serious. We might misquote a budget figure, misidentify someone accused of a crime or say someone has died when they are actually still alive.
While the severity of the mistake might influence how we react and what our users see, this most important principle should apply: Our users should know that we take accuracy seriously and that if we get something wrong, we will correct it publicly and will be guided by consistent policies and processes.
But that’s not always happening. Fewer than half of U.S. adults say journalists admit and take responsibility for their mistakes at least some of the time, according to the Pew Research Center. And people with low trust in the news cite a lack of faith in news outlets’ accuracy and the perception that journalists don’t own up to their errors as part of the problem. (One example: This was a key theme in research we did last year with the Center for Media Engagement around building trust with right-leaning consumers of local news. The researchers urged journalists to correct mistakes promptly to combat misperceptions about our commitment to accuracy.)
Today, we’re launching a resource designed to help you communicate clearly about your corrections policies and practices. Trusting News Guide: Corrections Audit
Why this matters
When people see mistakes by news organizations but don’t see those errors corrected, that contributes to distrust. When people see a mistake in a news story but can’t find a way to contact the newsroom or journalist about it, that contributes to distrust. And what if someone contacts the newsroom or journalist about a mistake but never receives a response? What if a person sees a mistake in a news story but sees it was fixed without any recognition of the mistake or record of a correction?
Do you think any of this is moving us closer to building trust?
It’s not, and it’s unfortunate because journalists do usually make corrections, and we usually have standards around corrections. We just don’t do a good job of letting the public know. (If you’re tempted to suggest that this should be obvious to the public, remember that ethical standards are not universal. For every complaint you hear about journalism, you could probably find an example of where the accusation is accurate and justified.)
In a 2020 analysis of more than 7,000 news and information websites, Trust Metrics, a brand safety analysis platform, found that just 16.5% of the websites they analyzed had a public corrections policy. At Trusting News, we think the number is actually lower since some of the websites Trust Metrics categorized as having public-facing corrections policies simply had “no warranties” claims that said the organization is not responsible for any of the information on their website but didn’t explain if they make corrections or have a process to do so.
In our Road to Pluralism work, we’re addressing topics like what makes coverage seem fair, how news contributes to polarization and how our world views as journalists affect how we cover the news. Through the work and related research, we have learned that one approach journalists can take to better demonstrate trustworthiness is to correct mistakes promptly.
What your audience should be able to expect
Our recommendations are pretty straightforward:
- If there is a mistake, correct it. Admit the mistake, and if you can, explain how it happened and how you will work to prevent it from happening in the future.
- Make sure people know how to contact you with a correction request. This process should be easy to find and to navigate.
- Make corrections policies public and include enough detail so users can understand which types of errors are corrected and where they can expect corrections to be found.
At Trusting News, we see the work journalists can do around corrections as a basic way to build trust. We also see it as work any newsroom can do. So, why aren’t more newsrooms doing it? Why are corrections policies hard to find or non-existent?
What we’ve learned with our newsroom partners
To help us answer these questions, we recruited newsrooms to audit and examine their corrections policies. Five newsrooms stepped up for the challenge: Religion Unplugged, WITF, Lee Enterprises, Shasta Scout and KIVI.
Over a period of a couple of months, the newsrooms answered questions about their corrections process. The questions were focused in five areas:
- Policies
- Style
- Placement
- Error reporting from the public
- Newsroom culture
When auditing their corrections policies, the newsrooms were asked to tell us what elements were included in internal corrections policies and which were included in public-facing corrections policies. Because we know not all newsrooms have public-facing policies, we wanted to separate the two when having the newsrooms audit what was included.
See which of the five newsrooms that participated has which elements in their internal policies and public-facing policies in the images below.
“Sometimes, I think we feel part of the decision-making process on corrections should remain internal. We are all about transparency, but we don’t want to risk sharing too much.” — Tim Lambert, WITF Multimedia News Director
Here are some observations from our partner newsrooms after going through the audit:
When it comes to the style of a correction, newsrooms had a consensus that clarity is important. They shared mixed answers on whether the correction should be more conversational or more formal in tone. (Our take: The answer can vary depending on what feels appropriate to the voice of the organization.)
In terms of the placement of corrections, newsrooms were split on whether they should go at the top of an online news article or bottom. (Our take: Transparency elements don’t do much good if they’re not seen. Check out the scroll depth data in your analytics to see what percentage of users make it to the bottom of a story. We’re guessing it’s a tiny number.)
Most of the newsrooms we partnered with do not have a standard system in place for social media corrections.
The Religion Unplugged newsroom said they correct social media errors on each particular platform, ideally editing the text and then letting the public know they edited the text. The team said that, if necessary, their policy could also involve deleting a post (like a tweet that can’t be edited), and in that case, they would explain why. (Our take: The primary goal around corrections on social media is to make sure a correction is made wherever the information was shared. This includes posts, photos, comments, replies, DM’s, stories, videos, etc. This is important because you want to be sure to make sure everyone who might have seen the error has a chance to also see the correction.)
When asked how news consumers can report corrections, two newsrooms said they have specific invitations for users to report errors while two have general “contact us” invitations.
An embeddable tool from one of our newsroom partners
Religion Unplugged was the only one of these five newsrooms to include an easy way for a news consumer to report a correction on story pages — which is where people would be most likely to spot an error.
Note the black bar below.
Paul Glader, the executive editor of the publication, is also the founder of VettNews Cx, a corrections tool that makes it easier for newsrooms to accept corrections, keep track of them and respond to users who make corrections requests. Religion Unplugged uses VettNews Cx on its website.
The tool sends readers an automatic thank you when they submit a corrections request, and they are then given a clear expectation of not just if, but when, they will get a reply from the newsroom. Learn more about the tool in this video explainer.
Religion Unplugged is also the only one of these five newsrooms with an invitation to report a correction on their home page. It is included in their header after a user clicks on “About.”
Most of the newsrooms reported being confident that if an error report came in via the many channels or inboxes that exist, it would make it to the right people and get the right attention to be considered for a correction or response.
All of the newsrooms reported having a culture that avoids shaming staffers who’ve made errors and instead they said they have a culture that validates and appreciates the decision to speak up. That’s not unexpected to hear from newsrooms that self-selected into a project around corrections! We also know it’s not the case in all newsrooms. If you think errors are getting ignored in your newsroom because of a shame-based or punitive culture, we recommend you start by finding allies who can help you change it.
“We see this as a core part of our work and one of the most important things we do. We believe the crowd can help us improve our accuracy,” — Paul Glader, Religion Unplugged Executive Editor
Are you ready to get to work?
We’re now sharing our process publicly. Use our Corrections Audit to see where your corrections practices stand. See what is missing, what could be improved and what may need to be written or made public.
We’re here to help, and we want to see what you’re up to!
Please let us know if you go through our Corrections Audit. We’d love to hear whether it helped you analyze your products and the corrections process with fresh eyes. And if you make changes as a result of the process, we’d love to share your improvements with the industry!
In addition, if you go through the audit and come up with your own ideas, our team is happy to take a look at your policies or process and offer some feedback. Email info@TrustingNews.org, or tweet @TrustingNews.
How other newsrooms do it
For some inspiration, here are some examples of how newsrooms are sharing their corrections policies and talking publicly about how they make corrections:
- Toronto Star’s is fantastic. The policy is here. Corrected stories are collected here. The bottom of every story invites people to report an error and see their standards.
- The Tangle newsletter is written conversationally and counts errors.
- WCPO has a written policy and submission form.
- NPR has a form and a database of corrected stories.
- The Dallas Morning News has a form.
- Grady News source includes procedures for social platforms.
- The Echo tracks corrections on this page and tells people how to report errors.
- In this edition of Trust Tips, we write about how to address an error with humility.
- WCPO explains why weather forecasts sometimes turn out to be inaccurate.
- A mistake can also create a unique opportunity to build trust with your community. Look at how the Star Tribune did just that.
At Trusting News, we learn how people decide what news to trust and turn that knowledge into actionable strategies for journalists. We train and empower journalists to take responsibility for demonstrating credibility and actively earning trust through transparency and engagement. We’re co-hosted by the Reynolds Journalism Institute and the American Press Institute. Subscribe to our Trust Tips newsletter. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook. Read more about our work at TrustingNews.org.
