As journalism students, we have been instilled with the basic principles that define good journalism: fairness, attribution, relevance, timeliness, and, perhaps most important, accuracy. Essentially, accuracy refers to getting the facts straight. Is what you are reporting true? Along with being factually correct, we as journalists must also remain accurate in areas such as grammar and spelling; ultimately, the mechanics behind our writing. Craig Silverman speaks on the role of accuracy in journalism, stating, "Journalists are conditioned to fear and avoid mistakes. This helps send the message that accuracy is important." Despite this comment, though, even the most decorated of journalists are found guilty of errors in their writing, regardless of the medium in which it reaches audiences. So, what can we do as journalists to ensure accuracy in our writing? How can we train ourselves to avoid these mistakes?Although Silverman does concede that fear can be a good way to prevent journalists from making mistakes in their writing, he argues that "one of the best ways to learn how to avoid errors is to make them in the first place." This point is very much in tune with the old Chinese proverb, "I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand." Basically, having someone tell you not to make mistakes in your writing, or even seeing examples of mistakes you should avoid in your writing, will not produce the same learning experience as physically making the mistakes yourself and assessing why they are wrong. Silverman cites Nate Kornell, an assistant professor of psychology at Williams College, who reiterates this point: "making errors is the best way to learn information that you want to learn." In other words, we learn from our own mistakes, not from listening about or seeing the mistakes of others. These methods only detach you from the situation; firsthand experience is what you will remember.
Silverman also maintains that mistakes are "instructive," and ultimately work to teach journalists the importance of accuracy; however, mistakes within journalistic writing can have serious consequences, some of which may be harder to recover from than others. The public trust in journalists to provide them with accurate news and information, so when audiences find mistakes, that trust is automatically broken and a sense of betrayal sets in. Next, individuals will often begin to question the journalist's credibility, and assess whether or not they really are a reliable news source: Well, if they made a mistake in this article, will they make it again in the future? Have they made these kind of mistakes in the past? Why are they making these mistakes in the first place? Journalists can lose audiences over these inaccuracies, leaving them with no readers, listeners, users, etc. and essentially no career. Like the public rely on journalists for accurate news and information, journalists in turn rely on the public to fuel their "brand," or name, as well as the content they produce.
Overall, I agree with Silverman when he says that teaching accuracy "never really ends." Even though journalists know mistakes should be avoided in their writing, it is almost inevitable that they will make at least one at some point in their career. "To err is human," as Kevin mentions in his blog post on accuracy. That being said, the following are mistakes from three separate online Canadian publications that managed to slip through the editing process, and make their way to press:
The Edmonton Journal recently published an article about a man's body found on an acreage outside of Edmonton. The journalist included this statement from police:
“Due to observations made at the scene, investigators do not believe the death to be an accident and are treating it as suspicious.” -- Karen Kleiss, edmontonjournal.com
The quote itself appears to be error-free, but it was integrated into the story as is, with absolutely no form of attribution. Who said this? That is what readers need to know. This is a significant error in journalistic writing, one that should not be made twice.
In an article from the Vancouver Sun on the Paralympic torch relay and ceremonies in Greater Victoria, the journalist included this sentence, which contains a few errors:
"About 375 people gathered at Archie Browning Centre in Esquimalt for a free pancake breakfast hosted by the Esquimalt Lions Club and to meet the torchbearers who would carrying torch in loops around Bullen Park." -- Sandra McCulloch, Canwest News Service
The first part of the sentence is missing the word "the" before "Archie Browning Centre." Instead, it should read as: "About 375 people gathered at the Archie Browning Centre for a free pancake breakfast..." This sentence is also missing the word "be" before "carrying" and the word "the" before "torch." It should read as: "...to meet the torchbearers who would be carrying the torch in loops around Bullen Park." These errors are minor, and are probably the result of writing to deadline, with little to no editing. Either way, the quick fixes mentioned above work to add clarity to the sentence.
Finally, an article from the Globe and Mail on the recent recall issued by Toyota contains this error, regarding the number of vehicles that were affected by the recall:
In a paragraph at the beginning of the story, the journalists states:
"Since then, Toyota has recalled some 8.5 million vehicles worldwide -- more than 6 million in the United States -- because of acceleration problems in multiple models and braking issues in the Prius." --Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press
In the latter part of the story, the journalist again makes reference to the number of vehicles recalled by Canada:
"The recall, affecting 5.6 million vehicles, was first announced in
October." -- Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press
There seems to be some discrepancies with the numbers reported within these two paragraphs: Did Toyota recall 8.5 million vehicles, or 5.6 million? In reading these sections over a few times, I think the journalists means to say that the recall included 5.6 million Prius models, and 8.5 million vehicles in total. However, I did not gather this from my first read-through of the story. To avoid this confusion, the second sentence should be rewritten, perhaps something like: "The recall, affecting 5.6 million Prius models, was first announced in October."
Although these mistakes are relatively minor, journalists should still strive for error-free writing every time they send copy to press. However, many online newspapers also provide links to "corrections" pages that note any inaccuracies that were printed. Both the Edmonton Journal and Globe and Mail included corrections pages; the Vancouver Sun did not.
Note: Image from angiemcgovern.wordpress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment