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."