The Right Way to Admit a Mistake

How corrections are worded is important not only for The Post's credibility but also for a historical record of reliable information. Post guidelines say, "Corrections should be clear, concise and direct. They must be understandable even to someone who did not read the original story, and they must be complete enough that any reader will see what the mistake was, and how it has been corrected."

Readers sometimes want more. Lawrence Watthey of Frederick writes: "I would encourage your paper to take greater responsibility for reprinting corrected stories in full, in context, while explaining the error, why it was corrected and why it was made in the first place."

The Post does not reprint corrected stories, but you will find corrections on washingtonpost.com, with the original story, and corrections are appended to stories in Post archives and other electronic databases. The reason for the error will appear in the paper's internal corrections database, but not in the correction.

In this newsroom and others, journalists disagree whether blame should be assigned in the correction. Most editors think readers don't care; they just want the right information.

Most corrections are due to reporting errors because reporters write most of what appears in the paper. But if an editor inserts a mistake, many reporters feel that a correction should note that. The Post Stylebook says it shouldn't. "We do not assign internal blame for a mistake, such as distinguishing between reporting and editing errors. Ours is a collective enterprise; we share responsibility for our successes, and for our errors."

A frequent argument by editors is: Editors get no credit for catching factual or grammar errors, so why should they take the blame when one is not caught? Executive Editor Len Downie notes: "Reporters get bylines and prizes when they do well, and editors don't." That's true. (Let me salute Editorial Copy Desk Chief Vince Rinehart, who saves me from myself frequently.)

Not all editors agree that they shouldn't be blamed. Bill Walsh, chief of the National copy desk, said, "Personally, I would prefer to acknowledge when an error is an editor's, because otherwise readers are likely to assume that the person whose name is on the story made the mistake."

That is exactly the point reporters make. White House reporter Peter Baker said, "Writers are held accountable because our names are on the bylines. Why should writers be held accountable when it's not their fault? Why shouldn't we be transparent with readers?"

In a May 9 story by Dana Priest about CIA Director Porter Goss's resignation, a key Pentagon intelligence official somehow acquired a different name, and a correction appeared the next day. Priest did not make the error, and it's unclear how it was made.

Priest doesn't believe in placing blame: "After years of wishing that we would say 'due to an editing error,' I now feel differently. The copy desk saves me all the time from some inconsistency or spelling error, or worse. And once you start saying 'due to an editing error,' then don't you have to add to the list 'due to a misunderstanding with a source,' or 'due to a vague description by the government,' or 'due to a reporting error,' or whatever? In the end, we are all in this together, every single day."

Recently, the Health section ran the wrong phone number for a cancer screening service. The number was wrong in the sponsoring group's news release. The stylebook says that "corrections that result from our receipt of incorrect information from outside sources can explain that fact to readers." But the correction did not do so because the error could have been caught by a copy editor calling the number (standard fact-checking policy for phone numbers and Web addresses).

A search of Post electronic archives found that "editing errors" were once frequently cited in corrections. Downie must make an exception in order for the phrase to be used, and it is rare in corrections on the news pages.

John X. Miller, public editor of the Detroit Free Press, said, "I've found that reporters want to attribute a mistake when it's because of an editing or source error, but not when they are responsible. The truth is that there are multiple people responsible for most errors because they should or could be caught before publication."

Keith Woods disagrees. Woods is dean of faculty at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists. He believes editing errors should be acknowledged. "A reporter's credibility with the source and the public is damaged each time a correction has to run. People always think it is the reporter's fault. We do tell people if the police department gives us bad information, to establish credibility. The public makes a distinction."

A Post correction does not name reporters or editors, but the internal corrections database does indicate whether the mistake was made by a reporter, assigning editor or copy editor, or in the production process. Readers have asked if reporters are punished for errors. No, even excellent journalists make mistakes. But the problem of frequent errors is discussed in evaluations.

I believe that routine corrections should not assign blame to editors. But editing mistakes that are egregious or that affect a reporter's credibility should be acknowledged.

Two other nitpicks: Corrections usually aren't published on Sundays because of the fixed nature of Page A2's content and design. If The Post makes errors on Sundays, it ought to correct errors on Sundays. And since last week's column, I have learned that obituary corrections are not run on Page A2. I repeat that readers are best served if all corrections appear in the same place -- on that page.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.