Accuracy and Fairness

The Editorial Eye offers an overview of findings from an American Society of Newspaper Editors report on media credibility. A few details:

From the book: Readers notice factual, grammatical and spelling errors. Those "little" mistakes undermine credibility.

Asked how often they found mistakes in spelling or grammar in their daily newspaper, 21% of the public said almost every day and another 14% said more than once a week.

About half the respondents said they found factual errors in news stories at least a few times a month; 9% said they found such errors almost every day.

The pressure of deadlines is seen as a major reason for mistakes. But large numbers of people think journalists are sloppy, careless or lazy. Others believe journalists either don't care, are too ignorant to even know they got it wrong or "just aren't very good at what they do."

About three-fourths of respondents said they had become more skeptical about the accuracy of anything they see or hear in the news.

From the book: More than three-fourths of Americans believe the news is biased, variously defined as "not being open-minded and neutral about the facts"; "having an agenda and shaping the news report to it"; or "showing favoritism to particular social or political groups."

More than four in 10 audience members believe that newspapers "provide unfair and unbalanced reporting of groups they might disagree with."

More than six in 10 believe newspapers are more concerned with profits than with the public interest. (About half of Americans believe say the media behave in ways that raise public concern because "they just want to sell more papers." And 85% think newspapers "frequently over-dramatize some news stories just to sell more papers.")

More than 30 percent believe ethnic or racial groups receive overly unfavorable coverage. In contrast, "powerful individuals or groups" get overly favorable coverage, according to 44% of respondents.

From the book: The public is very skeptical of unnamed sources.

When they see information attributed to an unidentified source in a news story, 77% say they are concerned about the credibility of that information.

If the journalist cannot get anyone to go "on the record," 45% of respondents say they would rather the story not run at all, compared with 28% who say they would prefer the story run with quotes from unidentified sources.

Accuracy -- getting the big and small facts right -- is part of the journalist's overall commitment to truth-telling.

Here is some practical advice, from the folks at the Project for Excellence in Journalism, about how journalists can improve the accuracy of their reporting, writing ... and editing:

* Never add anything that was not there.

If it did not happen, it does not belong in the story.

This goes further than "never invent" or make things up. It also encompasses rearranging events in time or place, or conflating characters or events.

* Never deceive or mislead the audience.

If you are going to engage in any narrative or storytelling techniques that vary from the most literal form of eyewitness reporting, the audience should know. (This includes altering quotes.)

In general, as an editor (or a reporter), you should ask yourself if you would be uncomfortable explaining what you are doing to a rational reader. If you would ... maybe you should reconsider doing it in the first place.

* Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.

Be as open and honest with audiences as you can about what you know and what you don't.

Reveal as much as possible about sources and methods:

* How do you know what you know?
* Who are your sources?
* How direct is their knowledge?
* What biases might they have?
* Are there conflicting accounts?
* What don't we know?

"Most of the limitations journalists face in trying to move from accuracy to truth are addressed, if not overcome, by being honest about the nature of our knowledge, why we trust it, what efforts we make to learn more."

Transparency also signals your respect for the audience. It allows the audience to judge the validity of the information, the process by which it was secured, and the motives and biases of both you and your sources.

Transparency is the best protection journalists have against errors and deception by sources.

* Be transparent with your sources, too.

Reporters should not lie to or mislead their sources. Bluffing sources, failing to level with them about the real point of the story, even simply lying about the point of stories are all techniques some journalists have applied in the name of seeking truth.

They're bad practices and bad habits, and editors should strongly discourage them.

If your reporters lie to their sources, they have little reason to expect those sources to tell them the truth in return.

* Do your own, original reporting.

Reporters (and editors) must do their own work. It's that simple.

* Be humble and keep an open mind.

Be careful not to assume you understand more than you really do. You should be skeptical not only of what your see and hear but also of your ability to know what it means.

Recognize your own fallibility and the limitations of your knowledge. Acknowledge what you are unsure of -- then check it out (see below). Avoid fudging or writing around something you ought to know but don't.

"A key way to avoid misrepresenting events is a disciplined honesty about the limits of one's knowledge and the power of one's perception."

At an even more concrete level, The Editorial Eye points out that most errors fall into about a dozen categories. The authors offer a terrific list, so here it is again -- with links to online references where appropriate.

As a UI student, you also have online access to tremendous resources through the University library databases, including full-text reference sources such as encyclopedias, almanacs and much more. (Yes, including the complete online guide to The Birds of North America -- just in time for spring!)

* Spelling. Familiarity with commonly misspelled words is helpful. Most newsrooms rely on Webster's New World College Dictionary as their spelling guide; use the first option if several spellings are given.

* Names. For local folks, check local sources such as phone books. For others, good references include Who's Who and the Dictionary of American Biography.

With names of people, watch for famous, unusual and international names; second references (be sure the full name was provided earlier in the story); and consistency.

With names of organizations, companies or brands, also check for proper use; Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations is one good source.

* Numbers. Check every number in every story every time. There are lots of good online calculators. Be especially attentive to stories about polls or surveys, and know what questions a story about them should answer.

* Titles. They matter a lot to the people who hold them. Make sure they're right.

* Cultural references. The best source will depend on what aspect of culture the story covers. A few good online sources include Bartleby's for books, quotations and other mostly literary stuff; the Internet Movie Database for movies; and d'Art for fine art.
* Historical and geographic references. Most newsrooms and their reference libraries include lots of good sources. Among those available online are an excellent almanac put out by, well, the CIA, actually; a nifty little history site called HyperHistory; and, in addition to a variety of online atlases, a cool collection of maps from National Geographic.

* Famous quotations. Lots of quotations databases are available online. Bartleby's offers links to various collections, including the most famous, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations; also good is The Quotations Page.

* Garbled idioms. The line between idioms and cliches is a fine one, but if you're going to use an idiom, at least use it correctly. Their Web site isn't the slickest, but "The Idiom Connection" offers not only a whole lot of English-language idioms but also little quizzes you can take online to see how good you are at using them.
* Usage errors. Writers sometimes use the wrong word for what they mean. (Inexperienced writers do this a lot, typically when they are trying to sound sophisticated.) The only way to catch these errors is to have a deeper, wider vocabulary and knowledge of how language works.
* Superlatives. Watch out for stories that claim their subject is the first, the only, the oldest and so on. Fudge if the superlative is not essential to the story (for instance, "one of the first"); if it is essential, try to get the writer to explain or attribute it.
* Incorrect information. Like usage errors, these can be hard to catch. Your memory and common sense can provide useful warning signals. In general, be alert to any statements of facts that sound dubious, especially those that are unattributed.

* Factoids, hoaxes and urban legends. Utter nonsense flies around the Internet, in particular, with incredible speed and seeming veracity. Good journalists are skeptics (not cynics).

In particular, watch for information from which someone who does not have a lot to lose has a lot to gain, such as fame grabs (in which someone claims heroism or some other act that will result in celebrity) and moneymaking scams (usually designed to affect the stock market). For hoaxes that seem to have "legs" (be persistent), the Urban Legends Reference Pages site is especially helpful.

Quotes are another source of problems, for writers and for editors. Rules for editors include these:

* Do not change the words in direct quotes. (Have I mentioned this before?)

If you don't like them, your only option (other than sighing but leaving them alone) is to move or remove the quotation marks. You can move the quotation marks to create a partial quote, or you can remove them to create a paraphrase (also called an indirect quote). Ideally, the writer should be involved in such a decision.

(Remember that moving only the attribution is risky. In general, never move an attribution from the middle of a direct quote to either the beginning or the end of the quote without consulting the writer.)

* Do not put the words inside quotation marks if the writer didn't. We've already talked about this one, too.

Never change a paraphrased statement (an indirect quote) into a direct quote. It is almost certain to introduce error.

* Check the attribution for clarity. Direct quotes must be clearly attributed to a single source (not a group since people do not generally speak in unison), preferably using the simple word, "said."

* Check the attribution for accuracy. Statements that are not commonly accepted fact should be attributed.

Readers use the attribution to help them judge the credibility of what's inside the quotation marks. Statements should be attributed to sources with names and affiliations ("Meredith Hay, UI vice president for research"), rather than unnamed sources, whenever possible ... and reporters should be pushed to make it possible.

Many prominent news organizations, including the Washington Post and The New York Times, have recently revised their policies to limit use of unnamed sources (at least in theory). Most such policies require, among other things, that editors be told the name of a source to whom a reporter has promised confidentiality. That means your neck is on the line as well as the reporter's if things go awry.

Even the best editors sometimes make a mistake and "edit in" an error that was not in the writer's copy. When this happens to you, apologize promptly, profusely and politely to the writer.

A few tips to keep it from happening less often than it otherwise might:

* Don't trust your memory too much. As the book says, "Suspecting that a statement might be wrong is your cue to check it, not to substitute your own version immediately."

* Avoid change for the sake of change. It's not your story. It's the writer's story. Changing something just because that's not the way you would say it is both dangerous (no synonym is exact) and highly annoying. Avoid the temptation.

* Tie up loose ends. After you've moved elements within a story, reread the whole story again to be sure you haven't messed anything up.

Common problems include dropped first names on first reference, improperly attributed quotes and references to something that the reader doesn't know about yet.

Grammar and other micro-editing concerns rarely change at all. The journalistic norms and principles that go into most macro-editing decisions change slowly, typically over decades.

In contrast, cultural realities -- and assumptions about those realities -- can and do change continually along at least three dimensions:

* Changes in society: Demographics of the constituent groups in society are in constant flux, as is the amount of power they wield.

* Changes in language: Vocabulary, acceptable usages and language structure are constantly shifting, driven primarily by entertainment media and the Internet.

* Changes in journalism: A global, 24/7 news environment puts new pressures on journalists related to speed, accuracy and more.

Editors (and reporters) need to be attuned to inadvertent bias in stories and in the language used to tell those stories.

Stereotypical portrayals in the mainstream U.S. media are almost never intentional. Very few journalists are racists, sexists or any other form of bigot. But we sometimes fail to adequately challenge the assumptions built into our language, which for centuries positioned white men as the standard and everyone else as some sort of exception to that standard.

One simple question eliminates most language biases:

"Would my wording be the same if my subject were an affluent, white, Christian man?"

Here are a few key points about stereotypes, drawn from your readings:

* Be on the lookout for unexamined assumptions and language that reflects them, however subtly. Again, overt bias is rarely the issue for journalists.

* People of all genders, races, ages and so on can be unfairly or stereotypically portrayed or labeled -- including white males.

In general, think about whether:

* The information in question is relevant. Often, it's not.

* The words used to convey that information are appropriate.

* Here are three specific tips, mostly from WWW:

* Ask the source what terms he or she prefers.

* Eliminate labels. They are almost never relevant to the story. Labels can be about appearance, race, sex, age, religion, disability ... you name it. Most labels are adjectives and are easily dropped.

* Pay attention not only to what your own reporters are writing but to what those at other media outlets you respect are writing and saying, too.

Much of the country is more multicultural than Iowa -- but in the age of the Internet, all media are simultaneously local, national and global. Yours should meet the broadest global standard for fairness and accuracy.

The Editorial Eye offers additional ideas about balance and fairness to all:

* Editors should be on the lookout for "loaded" words with unwanted connotations.

* Some connotations have a legal flavor.

For instance, "admit" is connected in our minds with guilt.

And remember that the word "allegedly" buys you no protection whatsoever from a lawsuit. Ditto for "reportedly."

* Other loaded words seem to offer subjective judgments or evaluations.

For instance, saying someone "finally" did something suggests it should have been done a long time ago. The word "deal" sounds a whole lot shadier than "agreement." And so on.


In general, precise, specific words are your best choices. Many loaded words are shorthand cliches anyway.

(Many loaded words also are just plain short -- temptingly so for headline writers. Resist the temptation to use them.)

* Quotes raise complicated issues.

Editors (like you!) are trained never to touch anything inside a direct quote. But what if it's ungrammatical and the source's grammar is irrelevant to the story (as it usually is)? What if the source swears like the proverbial drunken sailor (but isn't one)?

Although many such issues are judgment calls, most mainstream media outlets clean up grammatical errors in quotes and avoid publishing profanity. (Broadcasters, of course, have to bleep out or otherwise deal with profanity or risk losing their licenses.)

* Ensuring that a story is balanced is a core component of macro-editing.

Your book suggests editors should read every story with these questions in mind:

* What are the other sides of this story?

Every story has more than one side -- and thus should have not just multiple sources but multiple sources representing different sides of the issue.

* How prominently are the other sides played?

All important views should be represented high in the story. The details and supporting information can come further down.

* How much space does each side get?

Journalism isn't stenography, but good stories about controversial issues should have opposing viewpoints more or less evenly represented.

If this is not possible, then editors should ensure that follow-up stories do justice to the under-represented side(s).

* Did everyone get a fair chance to be heard?

When stories include allegations that require a response, editors need to be sure reporters tried to get one. If the attempt failed, the story should include specific information about what efforts were made -- "so-and-so could not be reached for comment" isn't good enough.

Sometimes, editors may decide to hold an unbalanced story until all sides can be heard.

* Could my own prejudices be getting in the way?

Editors are not robots -- we all have personal opinions, feelings and even passions. Be aware of them and guard against their affecting your editing decisions.