Pushing More Standards, Fewer Regrets (Q&A with Regret The Error)

This segment brings me to Craig Silverman of Regret The Error, a blog monitoring media corrections, retractions and clarifications. Primarily monitoring newspapers and magazines, Silverman reviews up to 125 media outlets for errors, posting between three to fifteen items--er, uh,"regrets"--daily.

Be it Reuters recalling beef panties (instead of beef patties), a local newspaper mislabeling two men as mobsters (two days in a row, no less) or a Fox News pundit identifying a home belonging to terrorists (the terrorists live there three years ago, now the current owners are being terrorized), Regret the Error sees no error as too small.

More change agent than media watchdog, Silverman explains his blog's inspiration, "I felt there needed to be someone raising this issue. It's not about shaming or punishing the press; it's about cataloging and quantifying the problems and having the discussion about how things can get better. My interest is in making the press better, not tearing it down."

Minding the media proves popular: the site clocks 1,500 daily readers and 50,000 monthly page views from media, communications and marketing professionals as well as general consumers.

As marketers a great deal of our daily routines involve clear, correct communications, but our greatest role is facilitating trust among our constituencies. This blogger teaches us how getting our facts straight--and upholding high standards--not only applies to the media, but our own missions. Here's the Q&A:

What do the corrections, retractions and clarifications range? The first point I always make is that there are no small errors. Some may be worse than others, but anytime someone's name or title is spelled incorrectly, anytime a wrong phone number or date is offered, it matters. That said, they do range from things that you see every day to massive failures of reporting. Someone is incorrectly called a criminal, events are reported that never happened, or plagiarism occurs.

A lot of people would point to the failure of the media to correctly report on WMDs as a recent major failure. But there are also failures that are very personal, and I think these are just as corrosive to the level of public trust in the media.

How have the media reacted to your blog? The professional media have had an overwhelmingly positive response to the site. I have journalists sending in their own errors, and many others who draw my attention to competitors or other outlets. I think this says a lot about the commitment that journalists have to accuracy, and their understanding that correcting an error is of the utmost importance.

I also think the positive response from journalists is a result of my dedication to running a fact-based, non-partisan site. I increase my credibility by being fair and by not producing things that come from a set ideological or political view. This is something that journalists can identity with and respect.

On your blog you call out major media that do not feature an online corrections page, including ABC, CBS and CNN. How have they responded? I've only received one response so far and that was from CBS News. I sent a query into their Public Eve blog to ask whey they don't have a static online corrections page, and to find out how they prevent/correct errors in the evening newscast. I received a response that they have looked into creating an online corrections page and this is something they might create. But nothing has happened as of yet.

Tell us about your annual awards, or "Crunks": At the end of 2004 I realized that it made sense to do a round-up of the year's best of the worst from the site, which I then called the "Crunks" (Crunk is a hip hop term marrying "crazy" and "drunk"). They're like the Oscars, but without the gift bags, prestige, celebrities, parties, etc. The big categories are Error Of The Year, Correction Of The Year and Typo Of The Year. Also, the content is hilarious when you combine it all together!

So there was a bit of a publicity/branding idea behind the Crunks, but it was also a necessity for me to bring together the best of the worst to help raise the issue even more and draw new people into the debate.

You report on trends regarding media accuracy and honesty, how are we trending on these fronts? The reality is that the press has been stuck in a holding pattern where most outlets are all meeting the same, fairly low standard. Stories can now flash around the world in a matter of seconds, which means that mistakes move faster than ever before. It's incredibly hard to put the genie back in the bottle once an incorrect story is widely published. Yet fact checking remains a luxury not afforded in most newsrooms.

Some years are better than others, but nothing is really going to change unless managers start coming up with innovative ways to prevent errors and plagiarism from making their way into the paper or on the air.

End Note: Currently at work on a book slated for release in 2007, Craig's site has been a valuable tool in raising his professional profile and establishing him as press critic. Oddly enough, his ultimate goal is to be able to shut the site down. He explains, "That would mean there are so few errors and corrections that I would have nothing to write about".

No worries readers, with the rise in media outlets--be they professional or citizen journalists--something tells this marketer there will be plenty more regrets for some time to come.

Comments? Post 'em! Ideas for an upcoming segment? Send 'em on!  Access all interview segments here. Info. on this series: here.

Regret The Error Craig Silverman Media blogger interviews Christina Kerley CK

Comments

[Lewis Green]

CK,

As a former journalist, I think there may be more errors today, large and small, because of the 24-hour news cycle. As a reporter and then an editor, at least one other person read my copy before it went to paste-up (I just dated myself), and then it was read again by the department editor before it went to press. I doubt that kind of oversight exists today, as the rush to go to press (or get the story on the air) has eliminated at least some of the editing that once existed.