Totally rude, totally annoying, totally what I'm doing right now.

But wait!

I have some big news that I'll be sharing here later this week. News that's only a little bit about me. It's really about online news and journalism in Canada -- and something new that's coming along very soon.

I know, the only thing more annoying than someone blogging about some silly award is them doing that and then teasing you with something that they'll blog about a few days later.

But apart from that, I'm pretty pleased to share that my column for Columbia Journalism Review is a finalist for a Mirror Award for "Best Commentary—Digital Media." Here are the four columns that were submitted:

• "Violating the 'Contract of Correction'"
• "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong"
• "The New Great American Pastime"
• "Speed Demons"

My fellow finalists are Matthew Pressman (Vanity Fair) and Eric Alterman (Center for American Progress). Here's their excellent work:

• Eric Alterman (Center for American Progress)
  • "Think Again: Remember Real Journalism"
  • "Think Again: Mice, Playing: The Decline of Skeptical Journalism"
  • "Think Again: The End of Local Reporting?"
  • "Think Again: Conflicts of Interest by the Wealthy and for the Wealthy"
• Matthew Pressman (Vanity Fair)
  • "Why Time and Newsweek Will Never Be The Economist"
  • "Media Darwinism: Which Sites Will Survive?"
  • "A Media Guy Asks: Why Do They Hate Us?"
  • "Is Fox Business Network a Lost Cause?"

The awards will be handed out in New York on June 10 at a luncheon hosted by Katie Couric. At The Plaza Hotel. Seriously. Now can you forgive me for posting about this?

I've written eight columns so far, and you can read them all here. This column is a chance for me to connect the dots and provide some context for notable corrections and errors. To give an idea of what I mean, here's an excerpt from my November 7 column:

Apologies Not Acceptable

Does The Washington Post apologize?

By Craig Silverman

The Washington Post’s correction policy has some elegant turns of phrase, including “Preventing and correcting mistakes are two sides of the coin of our realm: accuracy.” But it says nothing about apologies. Could that be because “The Washington Post doesn’t apologize”?

That quote was attributed to a Post editor in an e-mail published by the Washington City Paper this week. The email was written by David Winer, the managing partner of EatWell DC, a restaurant group in the Washington area. He sent it to members of his company’s mailing list to respond to a scathing review published in the Post. Winer also contacted the paper to raise questions about the critic’s conflict of interest. As a result, the Post published this Editor’s Note:

Critic Tom Sietsema should have recused himself from reviewing the Commissary, a restaurant featured in the Oct. 29 Food section. He and one of the restaurant’s owners had earlier had a personal relationship. The Washington Post regrets that he reviewed this restaurant, and will remove the review from its online archive.

Here’s how Winer’s e-mail described the conversation with Sietsema’s editor, Tom Shroder:

Mr. Shroder, understanding the ramifications of Mr. Sietsema’s actions offered a settlement; kill the story on the web immediately, print a retraction in Sunday’s paper, and that neither Mr. Sietsema nor any member of The Washington Post food team would ever write about any Eatwell DC restaurant again. What they would not do is apologize for the harm caused by Sietsema’s spurious comments. “The Washington Post doesn’t apologize” but “we will say we regret”.

I’m not aware of any other media organization that has a “no apologies” policy. Plenty of other newspapers have no problem apologizing. Some have even apologized for things that happened decades or even centuries in the past. But it’s true that the Post almost never apologizes.

A Nexis search turned up Post articles offering advice on how to apologize, as well as editorials and columns that judged other people’s apologies. The closest I came to a recent apology was a letter to the editor published in September of last year, written by by an op-ed contributor who wanted to apologize for an error:

I apologize to MSNBC talk-show host Joe Scarborough and to The Post for the cutting description of Mr. Scarborough in a Sept. 7 op-ed, “Guilty in the Duke Case,” by me and KC Johnson about the Duke lacrosse case. I wrote that description on the basis of transcripts of “Scarborough Country” programs early in the Duke case. My attention has since been drawn to transcripts of several subsequent programs, and I realize that Mr. Scarborough was one of the handful of journalists who deserve credit for calling attention early in the case to the emerging evidence of innocence.I am very sorry that because of insufficient research, the op-ed suggested otherwise.

STUART TAYLOR
Washington

In September, Tom Sietsema, the food critic at the center of the controversy, offered a correction and apology while doing a chat with readers on the Post’s Web site. Here’s the exchange:

Point of Correction: Jared Slipp was the GM at the late and much missed Nectar. Danny Boylen was the notable GM of Notti Bianche in the same space.Tom Sietsema: Right you are. My apologies.

But that’s not the same as an apology made by the paper. In order to find an example of the newspaper making a formal apology for an error it had committed, I had to go back to an article published on July 17, 1977. The headline was “An Apology and a Salute To 2 Pilots Named Stinson”:

Katherine Stinson is not dead, even though her photograph was prominently displayed on The Washington Post’s obituary page yesterday,” it began. “And even as The Post apologizes for its error, it salutes the achievements of both Katherine Stinson and the subject of the obituary, Katherine Stinson Otero. The two women shared not only names, but also remarkable aviation careers in a time when no one had heard of a women’s liberation movement.

That appears to be the only relatively recent example of the paper giving an apology the headline treatment, though there have been other variations on the theme. “Apologies to Monty Bessicks of Cushman & Wakefield, whose name was unrecognizably mangled in a recent column item about his job switch from Galbreath Co.,” read an August 1997 correction.

“WE WISH to correct an error in yesterday’s observations here on the consolidation that is rapidly changing the defense industry,” read a March 1994 editorial. “We should have said that it was Loral Corp. (not Martin Marietta Corp.) that bought LTV’s missile division two years ago. We got it wrong, and we apologize.”

There were a few other examples where the word apology appeared in a correction, but nothing was more recent than the 1994 editorial. And in the end, they were corrections, not apologies. So, given the example from 1977, perhaps the correct way for the editor to have described the paper’s policy would be: “The Washington Post doesn’t apologize anymore.”

The first feature was about the supposed productivity benefits of giving workers a widescreen monitor. It was awarded the lovely headline, "Hold the bonus - give me 24 inches of pure joy." Ahem. You can read the article here. I recommend checking out the comments on the story, as people are sharing their experiences with big screens and multiple monitors. The piece also quotes from a blog post by entrepreneur Jason Calacanis, a big believer in the monitor-productivity link.

The second feature is about surveillance in the workplace. New technologies are offering employers unprecedented options for monitoring or tracking employees, and this story outlines some of the common ways for checking up on workers. It also details a Microsoft patent filing for a rather unbelievable monitoring system. The story is here, and the comments are once again worth a read.

How do these two stories fit together? Well, it's easier to see what someone is working (or not working) on if they have a gigantic screen. Apart from that, I've got nothing. What a silly question.

Enjoy the Silverman Show.

The 2007 Office Awards
Looking back at a long year on the job
CRAIG SILVERMAN
December 31, 2007

From gun-toting co-workers to bosses who bring in police dogs and hired thugs, it was a year of the ridiculous and the sublime in the world's workplaces. Here's the best of the best, the best of the worst, and the ones we still can't quite understand.

Worst Workplace: Chinese brick kilns

Office denizens ain't got nothin' on the grievances of workers at Chinese brick kilns. Kiln owners were found to have engaged in “illegal employment practices, abduction, restricting workers' personal freedom, employing child labourers and even murder.” What else? Owners “made use of fierce guard dogs and hired thugs, who bashed labourers, adults or children, at will.” Oh, poor you and your lightless cubicle.

Worse Employee: Drunk ambulance driver

Police pulled over an ambulance driver in West Virginia after they saw him run two red lights. They soon discovered he had a patient in the back and that he thought he had turned on his siren and lights. Then, big surprise, he failed a field sobriety test. Get me 40 ccs of unemployment, stat!

Best Office Time-Waster: Faceball

Two employees at photo-sharing website Flickr this year created Faceball, the latest in office gaming (check it out at Faceball.org). The concept is simple: Two people sit in chairs three metres apart and lob a beach ball at each other's face. A facial hit garners one point. The Faceball slogan? “Your face, our balls.” The lure of said balls? “It's actually enjoyable getting hit in the face by your opponent,” said Dunstan Orchard, one of the creators.

Best Office Exit: Angry auction employee

From a farewell e-mail sent by a Christie's employee to colleagues at the auction house: “I feel it is best to quickly express my fondest appreciation for some of the endearing ideas that I have seen peddled around me: like how everyone seems to be replaceable, thinking outside the box is liken to heresy, favouritism is thicker than water and speaking the truth gets you in trouble.” Anyone for farewell drinks?

Worst Workplace Idea: Police-dog training

A New Zealand grocery distributor upset employees after announcing a plan to let law enforcement officials use its facilities to train police dogs. Included in the announcement was a totally unrelated reminder that the possession of drugs and weapons at work was illegal. “This is a workplace, not a prison,” Laila Harre, a union official, told a local paper. “This is about the training needs of the police and the whim of bosses to scare the living shit out of us.” If all goes well, employees may expect to see SWAT training on the premises next year. Drop that kumquat and kiss the floor, produce punk!

Most Dedicated Employee: Carla Bird

Ms. Bird, an assistant at Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Studios, worked 800 hours of overtime during a 17-week period, which equals roughly 12 or 13 hours a day, seven days a week. But the kicker was that her claim for $32,000 (U.S.) of overtime was paid in full. Maybe it's time to hire the assistant an assistant?

Best Lawsuit Excuse: Massages and sausage

James Bonomo, a former paper-sales manager for Mitsubishi International Corp., sued the company alleging he was subjected to a night of drunken karaoke followed by a forced “non-sexual massage” at a bathhouse while on a business trip to China. While in the bathhouse, he alleges, his supervisor compared his penis to an “Italian sausage” and another colleague snapped a picture of it with a cellphone. Even Dunder Mifflin's paper salesmen would be appalled.

Serves You Right Award: The Texas shooter

An employee at Al Boenker Insurance in Texas shot himself in both legs after bringing a gun to work and placing it in the pocket of his jacket. According to one media report, “The bullet passed through the man's left leg and then his right leg and through the corner of a bookcase before lodging in the wall of a cubicle occupied by a startled female co-worker.”

The local police chief said the man “just felt the need to carry it” that day. Now he'll just feel the need to walk with a cane.

Most Evil Gadget: GZ PC-Sport

The obsession with desk-bound exercise continued unabated this year. The worst piece of office exercise equipment was the GZ PC-Sport, a step machine that connects to your computer and fits under your desk. If you stop stepping, it freezes your keyboard or mouse. As if that doesn't happen enough already.

Best Work Quote: Gregg Adams

Mr. Adams, a professor of veterinary biomedical sciences at the University of Saskatchewan's Western College of Veterinary Medicine, spends his days arm-deep in the rectums of various animals to check if they're pregnant.

When asked about his job, he said, “Have I been pooped on by an elephant and a rhinoceros? Yes. I've been up to my shoulders in it.” Keep reaching for the, er, stars, Gregg!

Outstanding Achievement in Special Effects: IvanAnywhere

Ivan Bowman is a Nova Scotia-based employee of iAnywhere Solutions, based in Waterloo, Ont. In order to make his presence felt in the office that's 1,350 kilometres from his home, the company created IvanAnywhere, a robot stand-in that roams the hallways and attends meetings. Everyone seems to like it, but wait until they realize THE ROBOT ACTUALLY CONTROLS THEM!

Sources: Daily Mail, Kitchener-Waterloo Record, PassiveAggressiveNotes.com,, Manawatu (New Zealand) Standard, The New York Times, Shanghai Daily, Saskatoon StarPhoenix, Fort Worth (Tex.) Star-Telegram, Associated Press.

When
the Blackberry service went dead last week, many people felt helpless
and disconnected. Patrick Tuite likely wished the outage had extended
to cellphones in general.

A lawyer representing John Boultbee,
who is being tried along with Conrad Black in Chicago, Mr. Tuite was at
the mercy of the court last Tuesday when a cellphone in his possession
kept ringing with the theme from The Exorcist. The judge confiscated the phone and put it in her office, where one assumes it continued ringing and speaking in tongues.

Mr. Tuite can take comfort in a 2007 survey of British cellphone
users by phone retailer Dial-a-Phone: 44 per cent of them admitted to
committing a "ring-tone faux pas."

And in a 2006 poll of U.S. workers by staffing company Randstad USA,
30 per cent listed shrill, ringing cellphones as their biggest office
pet peeve.

While movie theatres, schools and other public places make a point
of telling people to turn off their phones, the office remains the
haunt of flagrant phone ruffians.

People take calls or answer e-mail during meetings. Some cannot bear to remove their Bluetooth headpiece for even a
second; others talk at a perfectly normal level on an office phone only
to bellow on their cell as if trapped at the bottom of a well. Not surprisingly, all seem partial to ridiculous, loud ring tones.

"My ring tone is the quietest one possible," says Adeodata Czink, a
Toronto etiquette coach and president of Business of Manners. "The Exorcist was funny but not appropriate."

Ms. Czink says phones should be turned off in all meetings unless
you're expecting an urgent call, and the choice of a ring tone is just
as important as the volume. Keep it low and unobtrusive, she says. Try the vibrate setting.

Remember that a ring tone says something about you, and that something is often mouthed from behind your back.

Now that's something to be scared of.

ADVICE OF THE WEEK

 Clearing the air

“I know this may sound silly, but I get very distracted by noise,
and I often hear a lot of belching from your cubicle. If you're able to
do that more quietly, I would really appreciate it.” – A workplace
expert's suggested phrasing for approaching a co-worker who burps
constantly. If that failed, moving to another cubicle was suggested.
Crumbling Rolaids into his coffee was not. (Hartford Courant)

PRODUCTIVITY

April showers bring office slackers The
rainy, slushy April weather that hit Eastern Canada last week probably
also took a toll on workplace productivity. A survey of 6,000 workers
by CareerBuilder.com found that 21 per cent admit to being less
productive when it's raining outside and 9 per cent when it's snowing.

ART MEETS OFFICE

The creepy old guy “I think every office has some guy like Creed in it,” Rainn Wilson, who plays Dwight Schrute on
The Office,
told New York magazine when asked if the show's characters mimic real
life. “You know the character Creed? He's the old guy – there's always
some creepy old guy sitting in a corner, and nobody knows how long he's
worked there or what exactly he does. Everyone has worked with a Creed.”

BY THE NUMBERS

 Size matters
291 Average amount of square feet of an executive office in 1987. Today, the average executive office is 241.

98 Average square feet of a “senior professional's” office. The average call-centre employee's? Only 50.
International Facility Management Association

Craig Silverman is a Montreal-based writer and the editor of
RegretTheError.com. His first non-fiction book will be published by
Penguin Canada in the fall.

• Romenesko
• Gawker
• Fark
• USA Today
• BoingBoing
• Editor & Publisher
• The Times (UK)
• Alternet
• Daily Telegraph (UK)
• Detroit News
• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Huffington Post
• Kottke.org
• Jossip
• Metafilter
• Pajamas Media
• AOL
• Daily Kos
• Seattle Post-Intelligencer

UPDATE Jan 11: Okay, I'm not going to go too crazy with the vanity links on this post, but here's a link to an interview on NPR's On the Media, and a link to an Associated Press article.

The first was about Dateline NBC's awful "To Catch a Predator" series and why it's not really investigative journalism. The column also talks about Carl Monday, whom I consider to be the most prolific gotcha television reporter working in North America. That's not a good thing.

The second column compares current New York Times Public Editor Byron Calame to his predecessor, Daniel Okrent. Calame has started to catch heat from media critics and commentators and I add my take on his disappointing performance.

Rosenthal's Legacy: The Corrections

Former New York Times Executive Editor A. M. Rosenthal modernized
and standardized the practice of printed corrections. The media
landscape has evolved at an often furious pace since 1972, yet the
correction has largely gone unchanged. Now, this expert declares, a new
"modern" version is needed.



By Craig Silverman

(May 16, 2006) -- The achievements of former New York Times Executive
Editor A.M. Rosenthal have been given the full court parse since his
passing last week. His obituaries nearly all led with his reputation as
a demanding, temperamental leader of the newsroom. They went on to
praise his writing ability, his expansion of the Times' coverage areas
and footprint, and his decision to publish the Pentagon Papers. Mingled
with his personal peccadilloes and professional accomplishments was
often a one sentence ode to Rosenthal as the father of the modern
newspaper correction.

The Associated Press noted Rosenthal, "...began the paper's
practice, now imitated by many others, of running corrections as a
prominent daily fixture." The Los Angeles Times wrote, "When the
newspaper erred, he insisted that it admit its mistakes in a daily
Corrections column, which he introduced in 1972. He later added the
Editor's Note, which addressed flaws such as errors of omission and
lapses in taste and standards."

As former New York Times Assistant Managing Editor Allan M. Siegal
wrote in the introduction to the 2002 collection of amusing Times
corrections, "Kill Duck Before Serving," Rosenthal told his department
leaders in 1970 that, "corrections or denials or amplifications don't
really catch up with the original because they are not given proper
display."

At the time, the Times, like many other publications in North America,
ran its corrections throughout the paper. Corrections would appear in
every section, in different places, written in different ways, and
often under different headings. If you read the initial error, the
chances of you happening upon the correction were slim. It was accuracy
roulette.

Two years after Rosenthal's missive, the paper anchored its corrections
in one place inside the paper. Now, the logic went, people knew where
to find them every day. The industry cheered, and many papers fell into
line. Today, almost 35 years after Rosenthal created the modern
correction, you can pick up nearly any North American city daily, open
it to page two, and spot one or more corrections tucked away in the
bottom corner.

While an impressive legacy for Rosenthal, it also represents more than
three decades of complacency by newspaper editors. The media landscape
has evolved at an often furious pace since 1972, yet the correction has
largely gone unchanged.

Rosenthal's successor, Max Frankel, is credited with his own tweak on
the correction by insisting on standardizing how they are written. But
the truth is that the placement, presentation and preparation of a
correction remains stuck in 1972. In fact, there has been little change
since the 19th century, even with Rosenthal's advancement. While the
language was of a more ornate character then, early corrections in the
Times and elsewhere are strikingly similar to their modern relations.
Take, for example this correction from the Times (then the New York
Daily Times) of December 31, 1851:

"CORRECTION. -- In our list of contributions to the Kossuth fund
published on Saturday, we say, "55 Segar Makers of Duffield, Conn.,
$55.00." The Compositor has transformed Suffield into Duffield. It
should read -- 35 Segar Makers, Suffield, Conn., $55.00."

Update the language and this correction could run today, over 150 years
after it was first published. There is, however, one notable exception:
This correction was published on page one of the newspaper. That
wouldn't happen today for such a seemingly mundane mistake. So, really,
how far have we come?

Editors are loath to increase the prominence of corrections, or rethink
how to present corrected information to readers. There is a
disappointing lack of interest within (increasingly skeletal) newsrooms
to broach fundamental questions: Do corrections work? Are they the best
way to ensure readers receive the correct information?

After spending the last year and a half reading close to 100,000
corrections from newspapers, magazines, websites and other media
outlets around the world, I can only conclude that the answer to both
questions is an emphatic no. The correction must evolve. The status quo
of how to handle a mistake ensures very few readers actually read the
correct information. They can't be bothered to scan A2 every day to see
if something they read yesterday or a few days ago was incorrect. In
addition to this barrier, too many corrections fail to offer a clear
explanation of the error and an adequate expression of the correct
information.

One personal pet peeve is when a newspaper misidentifies someone in a
photo and then fails to identify the mistaken person. Such is the case
with this December 2005 correction from AP that ran in the Fresno Bee:
"An Associated Press photograph that ran on Page B5 of Sunday's Bee was
not of convicted murderer Mitchell Sims." In this particular case, the
misidentified person was also labeled a murderer. How nice for them.

Errors often involve a person. As such, a correction should be written
with humanity, rather than cold calculation that ignores logical
questions any reader would have. Who was the person in that photo? How
did the mistake happen? Today's corrections are often too brief, too
obscure. They read like the hurried work of an editor tasked with an
unpleasant chore, or, in the worst examples, they come off as the
result of an effort to conceal rather than disclose. The reality is
corrections exist more to absolve a publication than inform readers.

One recent advancement, borne of technology rather than industry
innovation, is that the Internet offers the chance for publications to
place a correction within the story itself and keep it there forever.
Unfortunately, an alarming number of newspapers are still without an
online corrections page, let alone the commitment to place a correction
within the relevant article online. The New York Post, New York Daily
News, USA Today, The Oregonian, San Diego Union-Tribune and Detroit
Free Press are but a few of the larger American papers that run
corrections in print, but don't port them to the Internet on a set
corrections page. It's a lapse that speaks to a disturbing lack of
attention to corrections and accuracy. (It's only fair to note that
broadcast outlets with web news operations are even worse when it comes
to handling corrections online.)

The Times' most recent alteration to its corrections was to label
smaller errors of fact as "For The Record," and more substantive errors
as "Corrections." The paper also last year introduced a new corrections
policy for its op-ed section. The former makes no substantive
difference to readers, while the latter is beyond long overdue.

This isn't to suggest that the Times is behind the curve. Rosenthal's
innovation in 1972 and the paper's effective use of online corrections
have managed to keep it at or near the front of the corrections pack.
Which is exactly the problem. Throughout the industry corrections have
been tweaked but not reexamined. Shuffle the Titanic's deck chairs all
you want, they'll still end up useless on the ocean floor.

Rosenthal's passing has brought the correction into the limelight. In
the process, it has revealed the correction's stagnation, lack of
innovation and current problems. Hopefully, this will serve as a wake
up call to newsrooms around the world to rededicate themselves to
accuracy, and apply their talents to devising a new, modern form of
correction that serves readers and demonstrably raises the bar for
accuracy and disclosure in the press.

As the recently enshrined father of the modern correction, it's perhaps
fitting, and certainly not surprising, that Rosenthal's obit resulted
in a few corrections of its own. In his honor, I offer this correction
from May 12's Washington Post: "The obituary for A.M. 'Abe' Rosenthal
published May 11 incorrectly reported the death of New York Times
publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger. He is 80."