Words from another yard

Links and comment from Scott Rosenberg
Editor’s Pick
JUNE 24, 2011 12:48PM

Three pillars of trust: Links, revisions, and error buttons

Rate: 3 Flag

The journalism industry ships lemons every day. Our newsrooms have a massive quality control problem. According to the best counts we have, more than half of stories contain mistakes — and only three percent of those errors are ever fixed.

Errors small and large litter the mediascape, and each uncorrected error undermines public trust in news organizations. In Pew’s last survey in Sept. 2009, only 29 percent of Americans believed that the press “get the facts right.”

Yet the tools and techniques to fix this problem are known and simple. I’ve been working in this area for the last two years. Here’s a distillation of what I’ve learned: three basic steps any online news organization can take today to tighten quality control, reduce errors and build public trust.

    Link generously

    A piece without links is like a story without the names of its sources. Every link tells a reader, “I did my research. And you can double-check me.”

  • Read more on the value of links: In Defense of Links.
    Show your work

    The news isn’t static, and online stories don’t have to be, either. Every article or post can and should be improved after it’s published. Stay accountable and transparent by providing a “history” of every version of each story (a la Wikipedia) that lets readers see what’s changed.

  • Read a longer argument for the value of versioning.
    Or try out the WordPress plugin.
    Help people report your mistakes

    The Internet is a powerfully efficient feedback mechanism. Yet many news organizations don’t use it. Put a report-an-error button on every story: It tells readers you want to know when you’ve goofed. Then pay attention to what they tell you.

  • Get some report an error buttons at the Report an Error Alliance.
    Or use the MediaBugs widget.

Why aren’t these practices more widely adopted? Here are four reasons:

(1) Workflow and tools: In many newsrooms, especially those still feeding print or broadcast outlets, it’s still way too hard to fix errors or add links to a story for its Web edition. And content-management systems don’t yet offer corrections and history tools “out of the box.”

(2) Denial and avoidance: Other people make errors. Many editors and reporters don’t believe the problem is serious, or think it doesn’t apply to them. And most don’t understand how badly their Web feedback loop is broken.

(3) Fear of readers: Many journalists view readers as adversaries. The customer they feel they’re serving is an abstraction; the specific reader with a complaint is “someone with an agenda” whom they have a duty to ignore.

(4) Where’s the money? Many media companies are in financial free-fall. Correction systems and trust-building tools don’t bring in revenue directly, and they eat up product-development time and money.

These are serious obstacles. But journalists will never regain public trust unless we overcome them.

Ask journalists what sets them apart from everyone else sharing information online and we’ll say: We care about accuracy. We correct our mistakes. In a changing media economy that’s challenging the survival of our profession, we need to follow through on those avowals. Otherwise, we shouldn’t be surprised when Pew’s next biennial survey of public trust in the media shows even more dismal results.

[Crossposted from PBS MediaShift Idea Lab. This edition employs all three techniques I mention.]

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Thanks for the tips, Scott. Beyond spelling and grammar I spend most of my arts/lit blog time checking info and tracking down links -- and hope that even then I don't mangle them.
Great insights! Also remind me to be a discerning reader.
Congratulations on being an OS cover story. Too bad they got your headline wrong, although "billing trust" is an interesting concept. Hey, anything that can generate revenue for the dying print industry, right? Seriously, great essay with some very valid points.
i'm not sure the regard for truth is anywhere near as important as ideological agreement today. who cares if it's a mistake or a lie as long as it agrees with "my side"? look at the latest piece on Breitbart in today's NYTIMES. all that matters is ratings. that's who becomes the professionals.
Rated. . . .

Now, if we just get the editors of the OS cover to change "bill". . . to. . . "build". . . we would be well on our way to correcting our own mistakes. . . .

Good post. . Thansk. . err. . Thanks. . .
My Amish neighbors agree with UncleChri.
Please don't delete.
GMO strawberries,
corn, even salmon,
are altered to stay on Stock-Room shelf.
A Amish said fruits never rot. They dry.
Corporate Greed will end the problems.
`
I rarely view the Die-Off Blog. It's depressing.
Before Rome rotted the lead made ill-Zombie.
The gadget blog-OS-sphere will crumble soon?
The error is to buy-into a False-Globe-Economy.
Read`
In Times Of The Breaking f Nations - Thomas Hardy.
That wise poet foresaw truths pre-digit-delusional.
I know the digit-tech era is here to stay. Then what?
cc
email
saved
behave
prepare.
A Salon cofounder is tripped up by the so-called editor--How to BILL trust...??!! Nuff said. Site demise is nigh.
of necessity, i need to point out that until the invention of this media, writers wrote what they wanted and didn't provide "proof" in their texts and still won credibility based on the levity, insight of their views, and reputations. does that no longer matter? i'm not sure you are addressing the real issue.
'Journalist' as a substitute for 'reporter' was invented by reporters in the 1950s in order to add some gravistas to the hum-drum concept of 'reporter'. It's bull. You wrote: "Many journalists view readers as adversaries." Yeah? Sez who? That's bull too. Any 'jounalists' who DO view readers as adversaries are part of the problem, kind of like doctors who view patients as adversaries. They miss the point of their profession, their calling. Sorry, this whole piece doesn't work. Let me activate my error button lest any citizen 'journalist' wants to fix things.
Is the cover title supposed to say "How to build journalistic trust" because the one that appears sounds strange: "How to bill journalistic trust"
meant 'gravitas', but whatever, who's reading. . .
Scott: I just saw the pps for SMG is down to .12. Whew. This technical problem has to be addressed and fixed. I'm sure you're doing everything you can, but I don't think it would hurt to say a few words.