We Regret The Error, Maxwell Rausch

Okay, let's start with the the two most obvious points: nobody sets out to make a mistake, and everybody makes them. Generally speaking, we recognize that our humanity makes us prone to error, and therefore allow others the opportunity to correct their mistakes when possible, or at the very least, to learn from them.



However, there are certain individuals to whom that courtesy is not extended as often. Journalists are some those unfortunate few: we are relied upon to deliver accurate, current, compelling information in the most expedient way possible. The public's reliance on us means a professional error on our part has more extensive consequences than it would in some other field. Factual errors can lead masses of people to believe something untrue. A miscalculation of time, a missed deadline, can force the audience to turn to another source, perhaps permanently. None of this is revelatory, but it's crucial to understand. In an industry where we the distributors, the journalists, are not just agents, but actual voices that attract a following, mistakes can irreparably damage our reputation with our very finite audience.

Be that as it may, journalists (for the time being) are as human as our audience; we are capable of and frequently do produce mistakes in our work, even the best of us. As Craig Silverman, a seasoned journalist, points out, "journalists are conditioned to fear and avoid mistakes. This sends the message that accuracy is important." So yes, weare and should be held to higher standards, given the gravity of our occupation. However, fear only works as a deterrant to a certain extent. Silverman cites a study illustrating that fear in itself doesn't lead to accuracy; instead, it's experience. By making mistakes, we learn from them, becoming better after the fact. "Fear is good, but also bad; mistakes are bad, but also instructive (Silverman)." In our case, the contradictions actually complement each other.

That contradictory, seemingly airy concept actually softens the blow of another transparently obvious point: the fact that we will make mistakes. Like everyone else, we won't set out to screw up, but we will. Something, whether it be the presssure of deadlines or intellectual fatigue, will eventually (and repeatedly) result in professional error. In layman's terms: we're human. the best advice that I can ascertain from all of this is to take enough risks early on so that most, if not all, mistakes are made early on as well. After all, they can only make you better if you let them, and prepare you for the especially important tasks when they emerge.


Here are some simple, recent cases of journalists producing errors, however minor they may be:

1. This sports story from the Edmonton Sun, written by Derek Van Diest, contains a comma splice, a grammatical error, in the lede.

2. This was posted in the editorials of the Edmonton Journal. Besides a sloppy typo in the headline which could almost certainly have been fixed with a brief update, he trips over his (or her- the article conspicuously lacks a byline) words at the end, and finishes with, "would we really be so bad off?" He's using the word "bad" as an adverb -not kosher. To a journalist, who makes his living and stakes his reputation on decent communication skills, that sentence should stand out.

3. This court story form the Vancouver Sun doesn't suffers from somewhat sloppy storytelling. The lede is fine, describing how the ex-wife of an accused killer broke down on the stand, but then things get hard to follow. "Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Dan Morrison asked the witness, Genevieve Camara, what it was about Rita Yeung that had bothered Camara." First, the story provides no context about who Yeung is. More obviously, we don't know if the lawyer is asking how the witness felt or her former husband, as they could share the same surname. Journalists are supposed to streamline complicated stories, not make them more so.




Above image taken from here.