Measuring Accuracy: A Survey of Television News Managers' Attitudes
1
Introduction
Does it make a difference when a newscaster mispronounces a person's name
on the air? How much damage is done when Mr. Smythe is mistakenly
identified to viewers or listeners as Mr. Smith? In today's multi-channel,
multi-faceted media landscape in which information overload is not
uncommon, errors such as this one may seem relatively minor. Usually the
mistake is corrected after Mr. Smythe or one of his friends calls the
newsroom, and his name is pronounced correctly on subsequent
newscasts. In most cases, nothing happens to the offending producer or
newscaster, other than a reminder to be more careful next time. The
above-mentioned error was one of a series of hypothetical examples put to a
national sample of television news executives and line
producers. Respondents were asked to consider the seriousness of certain
errors and to decide what, if any, punishment is appropriate when
inaccurate or misleading information gets on the air.
The way in which television stations respond to errors goes to the heart of
journalism's credibility itself. Industry organizations have found that
lack of accuracy hurts the news media's credibility. In separate studies,
the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Radio and Television News
Directors Foundation discovered that inaccurate reporting contributes to
the overall decline in the public's trust in the media. (Examining Our
Credibility, 1998; RTNDF Journalism Ethics and Integrity Project,
1998) In particular, the ASNE study of public attitudes put concerns over
factual errors and spelling and grammar mistakes at the top of the list.
There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that suggests the public is, at
best, frustrated with journalism's occasional excesses, but it's one thing
to paint journalism with the broad brush of inaccuracy and quite another to
measure specific inaccuracies in television and newspaper
reporting. Research scholars have studied the accuracy of journalism for
more than 70 years. Not surprisingly, most of the accuracy research has
examined newspapers, but the literature is beginning to reflect several
studies that focus on television. For example, earlier research conducted
by (Hanson & Wearden, 2002) found a relatively low level of dissatisfaction
on the part of sources who were interviewed for television news stories in
Cleveland when it came to so-called factual mistakes (e.g., incorrect
names, ages, locations). The sources were more concerned about what they
perceived to be subjective errors (e.g., stories and interviews taken out
of context, events made to seem more newsworthy than they really
were). The distinction between factual and subjective errors is a central
theme in much of the accuracy literature.
The promise to deliver accurate information is part of the unspoken
contract that journalists have with their readers and viewers. Accuracy is
embodied in journalism's codes of ethics. The Radio Television News
Directors Code of Ethics calls on radio and television journalists to
report the news "…accurately, in context and as completely as possible"
(RTNDA, 2000). The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional
Journalists exhorts journalists to "…test the accuracy of information from
all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error" (SPJ, 1996). The
Associated Press Managing Editors' Code of Ethics says a good newspaper is
"…fair, accurate, honest, responsible, independent and decent" (APME,
1995). The American Society of Newspaper Editors' Statement of Principles
lists Truth and Accuracy as one of its six major articles, declaring that
"…all news should be accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all
sides (be) presented fairly" (ASNE, 1996). A century earlier legendary
newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer set the tone by demanding that his
reporters achieve "…accuracy, accuracy, accuracy" (Ireland, 1921).
Accuracy is clearly one of the professional standards that journalists
strive to achieve. Yet how much actual care is put into catching,
correcting and preventing factual and subjective mistakes? In a perfect
world, every newsroom would apply the standards contained in the codes
every day and on every story. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Anyone
who has ever looked out over a busy newsroom and witnessed the thousands of
bits of information that flow through it each day might marvel at the fact
that any of it is accurate at all.
The earlier study conducted by the authors looked at accuracy from the
source's point of view. This study looks at accuracy from the viewpoint of
the professionals. How concerned are news managers about issues of
accuracy? What happens in a newsroom when someone makes a mistake?
Literature Review
Accuracy in Newspapers and Other Print Media
The methodological standard for measuring newspaper accuracy was
established by Mitchell Charnley (1936) nearly 70 years ago. In his
pioneering work, he studied sources' perceptions of the accuracy of stories
in which they had been cited. His method consisted of sending copies of the
stories to the sources by mail and asking the sources to respond to a
questionnaire. Most of the inaccuracies Charnley measured were objective
errors of fact such as name wrong, title wrong, mechanical errors, figures
wrong, times wrong, misquotations, etc. But he also had a category he
referred to as "errors of meaning," which included more subjective errors
such as inaccurate headlines, overemphasis, underemphasis and
omissions. Interestingly, this category was ranked as the most common type
of error by the sources in Charnley's study.
Since Charnley's introduction of news accuracy to the scholarly literature,
there has been little change to his seminal methodology. Indeed, the issue
lay dormant for nearly three decades until a brief article by Charles H.
Brown (1965) appeared in Editor and Publisher in the mid '60s. He examined
attitudes of sources regarding stories in which they had been cited in a
group of Oklahoma weeklies, using substantially the same methodology as
Charnley. Like Charnley, Brown examined mostly objective inaccuracies,
although he created separate categories for omissions, inaccurate headlines
and lack of fairness or objectivity.
The next scholarly piece on newspaper accuracy appeared two years later in
Journalism Quarterly (Berry, 1967). In this article, Fred C. Berry, Jr.
examined source perceptions of accuracy of three San Francisco Bay area
dailies. His study was the first to make the important distinction between
objective errors (names, titles, ages, outright misquotations,
typographical errors, figures, addresses, locations, times and dates) and
subjective errors such as inaccurate headlines, overemphasis, underemphasis
and omissions. Berry reported that "the errors that Charnley called 'errors
of meaning' occurred most often" (Berry, 1967: 490). That is, subjective
errors were spotted most frequently by the sources in that study.
Berry's work was followed by a minor flurry of activity through the
1970s. Gary Lawrence and David Gray (1969) further refined the distinction
between objective and subjective inaccuracy, noting that subjective
inaccuracy often is of greater concern to sources. These authors also
attempted to address perceptions of the causes of errors. William
Blankenburg examined the issue again in 1970 and called for more research
on errors in news reporting. J. Richard Cote (1970) studied wire service
accuracy using the methodology developed by Charnley and Berry. Although he
did not use Berry's terminology, Cote also had two broad categories called
errors in interpretation (Berry's subjective errors) and errors in
reporting (objective errors).
Phillip J. Tichenor and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota
(1970) applied a slightly different twist to the study of accuracy in
science news. Rather than sending the original articles to sources for
their evaluation, these scholars presented the articles to field survey
respondents, asking them to read the articles and later to recall what the
articles said. The audience statements were then evaluated by scientists
quoted in the articles in an effort to examine communication accuracy from
initial source, through the news gatekeepers to the eventual audience.
T. Joseph Scanlon (1972) also took a somewhat different approach. Rather
than using sources to evaluate news story accuracy, he sent journalism
students out to "re-cover" the same stories, interviewing the same
sources. Then, comparing their notes with the reporter's original story,
an accuracy assessment was made. This was done, in part, because the
author and his students were concerned with two issues: 1. the low response
rates associated with some of the earlier mailed surveys, and 2. the fact
that earlier researchers relied on the sources' word that inaccuracies had
occurred. While the first concern appears legitimate, the second issue is
easily resolved by making a distinction between accuracy and perceived
accuracy, which is what all these studies actually appear to be
studying. Indeed, Scanlon introduces new sources of bias with his
methodology. First, students likely are less qualified to produce an
accurate accounting of interviews than are professional reporters. Second,
students' perceptions of stories may have been affected by their own
reading of the original articles. Thus it is not surprising that the
literature review uncovered no other research using Scanlon's methodology.
Michael Ryan and several colleagues published the first in a series of
articles on accuracy in science coverage in 1974 (Tankard, Jr. & Ryan,
1974). They were the first to address the notion mentioned above that it
is perceptions of accuracy and not accuracy per se that is being studied in
all the literature reviewed here. Tankard and Ryan refined the error types
to make them more specifically applicable to science. This study was
followed by a factor analysis of error types in science stories (Ryan,
1975). Ryan reported three broad factors: errors relating to overemphasis,
overstatement and exaggeration; errors relating to underemphasis or
understatement; and errors of an objective nature (spelling and
typographical errors, specifically). This provided support for the
contention of Berry, Lawrence and Grey, and others that objective and
subjective errors should be viewed as conceptually different from one
another and should be measured separately. The work of Tankard and Ryan was
revisited by D. Lynn Pulford (1976). She shortened the error list used in
the earlier study and made an attempt to analyze the perceived seriousness
of the errors on a three-point scale (not serious, neutral and serious).
She noted that Blankenburg (1970) also had addressed error seriousness, but
only with a single measure for the seriousness of errors in each story
overall. Meyer (1988) later adapted the seriousness measure, which was
used in this study from the viewpoint of the news managers.
Ryan and Owen (1977) extended the accuracy study to newspaper coverage of
social issues, finding more errors reported per story than "in studies of
general news accuracy, and roughly the same as the numbers reported for
science coverage" (Ryan and Owen, 1977: 32). Marshall (1977) applied the
methodology to Tucson newspapers, citing Charnley, Brown, Berry, Jr. and
Blankenburg as his primary sources.
Although they did not report a study of accuracy per se, Braeken and
Huypens (1977) published a brief methodological discussion pointing out
that response rates are lower among sources used in a story in which no
inaccuracies were perceived to have occurred. They also noted such reasons
for non-response as lack of time, forgotten, administrative problems, lost,
too difficult, wrong address, etc.
Another study appearing in this era that did not replicate the earlier
methodology was a piece by Singletary, et al., (1977) which examined
editors' views of news accuracy. The Pennsylvania editors queried in the
study cited spelling, grammar and typographical errors as those seen most
often.
In 1980, Singletary wrote a report for the American Newspaper Publishers
Association that provided an excellent summary of research to that
point. He indicated that studies have repeatedly shown that roughly "half
of all straight news stories contain some type of error" (Singletary, 1980:
6). He also concluded, based on a review of literature, that "a large
number of psychological phenomena are believed to contribute to
(inaccuracy) … authoritarianism, dogmatism, … neuroticism, co-orientation,
source-message orientation, cognitive stress and newsmen's fantasies"
(Singletary, 1980: 6). He also attributed inaccuracy to editors, sources,
writing styles, competitive pressure, imprecise language and distorted
headlines.
William Tillinghast (1982) called some of the previous findings into
question in 1982 when he found that reporters agreed with sources'
assessments of error only about 25 percent of the time.
Larry Burriss (1985) applied the methodology first developed by Charnley to
an examination of perceptions of sources in Time and Newsweek. One
interesting change he made, however, was to exclude practiced sources such
as government officials, community leaders and corporate leaders and to
focus instead on "ordinary people." To the extent that errors were reported
by such sources, they typically centered on quotes being taken out of
context.
A more recent piece on newspaper accuracy, and the springboard for the
series of studies being conducted by the authors of this paper, was written
by Philip Meyer (1988). His emphasis was on developing a reliable
measurement instrument and methodology whereby newspapers could measure
their own performance. Meyer examined basic facts (names, dates, places,
etc.), other facts, fairness and quotes. He also examined differing
response rates depending on whether the questionnaire originated from a
newspaper or a journalism professor. The overall response rate was higher
for the journalism professor, and the rate of subjective errors reported to
the journalism professor also was higher. To address Tillinghast's
concerns, Meyer also devised a system whereby the reporter had the
opportunity to respond to the source's complaints, and then a third party
judged both points of view and ruled in favor of either the source or the
reporter. Meyer reported that this technique enhanced validity while
preserving reliability, but it tends to be expensive and administratively
complicated, and it does not permit a promise of confidentiality to the
source/survey respondent.
Eleanor Singer (1990) reported, in a study of accuracy in science news,
several causes of inaccuracy: errors of commission (outright factual
mistakes), errors of omission, non-substantive errors caused by translation
from technical jargon to vernacular, errors related to selectivity and news
judgment, errors related to brevity and colloquialisms and errors stemming
from media's need to dramatize research findings.
In 1994, George Kennedy reported on an entirely different approach to
newspaper accuracy. His article described the efforts of the Columbia
Missourian to ensure accuracy by checking with sources prior to the
publication of stories. The report presented an interesting, if
logistically challenging, approach to improving newspaper accuracy, but it
did not discuss news accuracy as a research concern.
A 1999 convention paper by Scott R. Maier revisits print accuracy and
attempts to tie the concept to that of print credibility. The Maier
article also presents an excellent review of literature.
Accuracy in Television News
Only two published studies were uncovered that dealt with accuracy in
television news, and both had methodological limitations. The first was by
Singletary and Lipsky (1977), who sent typed transcriptions of local TV
news reports to sources who appeared in the stories. They asked the sources
to respond to a set of open-ended questions: "Was the story factually
correct, as far as you know? … If the story was not 'entirely correct,'
would you give examples of the errors which you observed? … If the news
story was not 'entirely correct,' what would you say was the 'cause' of the
error or errors?" etc. (Singletary and Lipsky, 1977: 363). Two weaknesses
are apparent here. First, the use of taped transcriptions does not allow
the source to evaluate the visual cues that also might be sources of
error. Second, the open-ended questions are difficult to code and rely
exclusively on the memory and perceptions of the sources.
The second TV news accuracy study was reported by Moore and Singletary
(1985). It is unclear whether this study employed open-ended or
closed-ended responses, but the primary complaints that emerged about
network TV science coverage were inadequate air time, omission of essential
details, sensationalization, leaving an incorrect impression, editing
problems that changed meaning and inaccurate quotes. As with the
Singletary and Lipsky study, the Moore and Singletary study involved the
use of typed transcriptions of stories rather than the actual video itself.
Hanson and Wearden (2002) developed a method for studying source
perceptions of TV news accuracy by adapting the methodology developed for
print. Instead of sending written transcripts, video tapes of news stories
were sent to a random sample of sources who had been interviewed by local
reporters in the Cleveland TV market. The results indicated that sources
were generally pleased with the so-called factual accuracy of the stories
in which they appeared. However, more than one-third of the respondents in
that study thought that important information had been left out of the
stories. Nearly 20% indicated that their interviews had been taken out of
context. The respondents rated the seriousness of the subjective errors to
be higher than the seriousness of factual errors. Despite concerns raised
about the television reports in which they appeared, the respondents rated
the Cleveland television stations to be more credible than the two daily
newspapers that serve the Cleveland/Akron metropolitan area, local radio
stations and news magazines.
Several recent studies surveyed the internal procedures of television
newsrooms to determine if systems were in place to catch inaccuracies in
stories before they get on the air. Tuohey (2002) surveyed television
reporters working in smaller markets to find out how many of them work in
stations in which scripts are approved before air time. The study found
that many of the reporters get little or no supervision, and few have an
opportunity for their scripts to be reviewed. Potter and Mitchell (2001)
delved further into the script review process and found that the scripts
most likely to be reviewed were those for investigative stories and
so-called "sweeps" pieces. Scripts for run-of-the-mill news packages were
reviewed considerably less often.
A 2002 symposium paper by Mark Harmon, Steven McClung and Amy Varecka
duplicated Singletary's method of sending printed copies of TV news stories
to sources. This study used the full-text versions of the stories that
appeared on TV stations' Web sites. Nearly all the respondents in their
survey indicated that the story was either entirely or generally correct.
(Harmon, M., McClurg, S. & Varecka, A., 2002)
The present study draws on several elements contained in the
literature. The first is the perception of the relative seriousness of
objective and subjective errors. Singletary (1977) was one of the first to
measure the attitudes of news executives, as opposed to other studies that
measure the reaction of sources. His study found that editors regarded
subjective errors to be the more important of the two broad
categories. Generally speaking, news sources interviewed for other
accuracy studies tend to say the same thing. (Lawrence and Gray, 1969;
Hanson and Wearden, 2002). Unfortunately, the assessment of the
seriousness of subjective errors by both groups is, well, subjective. In
an often cited study in 1982, Tillinghast found that reporters and sources
agreed only about 25 percent of the time on the exact nature of the
subjective error.
The literature identifies three broad groups that are stakeholders in the
debate over journalism accuracy. The first is the public at large, as
evidenced by the ASNE and RTNDF studies as well as growing body of
anecdotal evidence in the popular press. This group tends of offer
generalized feelings and perhaps a sense of what they hear on radio talk
shows or read on the Web. The second group is the sources who were the
subjects of specific news stories. Sources are asked to react to the
individual stories in which they appeared. The third group is the
journalists themselves. There are indications in at least some of the
literature that journalists' and sources' perceptions of errors are
different. This study seeks to determine the perceptions of television
news managers. Consequently, this paper looks at three research questions:
1. How do television news managers rate the seriousness of factual and
subjective errors in news stories?
2. How often have various types of errors occurred in the news managers'
newsrooms?
3. What are the employment-related consequences for newsroom employees who
commit errors in news stories?
Methodology
The sample consisted of 105 U.S. television markets, which is half of the
total of 210 as defined by Nielsen Media Research. The 105 were selected
by choosing the odd-numbered markets. (The decision to use the
odd-numbered markets was determined by a coin toss.) A station from each
market was selected at random according to network
affiliation. Independent, non-affiliated stations were included in the
rotation. Public television stations were excluded from the
sample. Researchers attempted to interview two individuals in each of the
selected newsrooms: a senior news manager and a line newscast
producer. Senior news managers were defined as news director, assistant
news director, managing editor or executive producer. Line producers were
defined as producers of an early evening newscast. (For those stations
that did not produce an early evening news broadcast, researchers attempted
to interview producers of late newscasts.) Telephone interviews were
completed between January 15 and March 15, 2003 by graduate students and
staff at Kent State University. The questionnaire was built on the results
of the authors' 2002 accuracy study.
Results
Seventy-five telephone interviews were completed for this phase of the
study. The breakdown of the interviews is as follows: 25 news directors,
11 assistant news directors, 5 managing editors, 11 executive producers and
20 newscast producers. Forty of the respondents are male; 35 are
female. The median age of the respondents is 36. Nearly all hold degrees
in journalism or mass communication. (One respondent majored in
biology.) The sample is roughly split between larger and smaller markets.
Q1: How do television news managers rate the seriousness of factual and
subjective errors in news stories?
Respondents were presented with a list of nine hypothetical errors that
might occur in news stories and asked to judge the relative seriousness of
each of them. The nine topics were drawn from the authors' 2002 study of
news sources and mirrored Meyer's 1988 study of newspaper accuracy. The
nine were: (1) mispronouncing a name, (2) misspelling a name, (3) reporting
an incorrect name, (4) getting a number wrong, (5) getting a fundamental
fact wrong, (6) editing a story to leave out important information, (7)
changing the context of a story, (8) producing a misleading news promo and
(9) making a story out to be more important than the event really is. The
first five examples are considered by the authors to be factual-type
errors; the remaining four are more subjective in nature.
Respondents appeared to consider the five factual errors to be more serious
than the four subjective errors, although the differences between the two
categories aren't statistically significant. Not surprisingly, the most
common errors (mispronouncing or misspelling a person's name) are among the
ones judged to be the least serious. Mispronunciations and misspellings
are unlikely to lead to law suits. (The public, however, might have a
different view of the seriousness of a mispronounced or misspelled name,
especially if the particular member of the public is the person whose name
is misspelled.)
Responses to the hypothetical situations are listed in table 1.
Table 1
News managers' assessments of seriousness and frequency of errors.
Seriousness Occurred in
(mean) past three months
(percentage)
Factual errors
Mispronouncing a name 4.25 85%
Misspelling a name 5.13 84%
Reporting the wrong name 6.03 16%
Getting numbers wrong 6.00 23%
Getting a fundamental fact wrong 6.47 8%
Subjective errors
Leaving out information source thinks is 4.11 46%
important
Changes context or distorts information 5.92 15%
Over-promising in a promo 5.19 45%
Inflating a story's importance 3.93 48%
Notes: n=75. Respondents ranked the seriousness of the error on a scale
ranging from 1 (Minor) to 7 (Major.) The percentage of occurrence reflects
the percentage of respondents who said the error occurred in their station
in the past three months.
It is interesting to note the relatively low level of seriousness given to
inflating a story's importance. This may be the result of the hypothetical
nature of the question, or it may reflect the need for stories to be
dramatic in order to hold the audience's attention. Sadly, nearly half of
the respondents indicated that this particular error had occurred at their
station within the past three months.
Indeed the occurrences of subjective errors are disturbingly higher than
the rate of factual errors with the exception of the mispronunciation and
misspelling of names. The subjective error of changing context or
distorting information presents an interesting issue, too. While this
hypothetical error was placed in the subjective category by earlier
studies, news managers might make the argument that it really falls in the
category of factual errors since it deals with factual issues. If that is
the case, then the managers' perceptions of its regular occurrence would be
in keeping with the other factual mistakes.
In the authors' 2002 study, news sources were asked to the rate the
seriousness of actual errors, both factual and subjective, using a similar
7-point scale. The mean seriousness ranking for factual errors was 3.57;
the mean seriousness ranking for subjective errors was 4.37. The
difference between the two was not judged to be statistically significant,
but it does indicate within the context of the survey that subjective
errors were judged to be more serious.
The differences in news managers' attitudes about the seriousness of the
hypothetical examples become a bit more apparent when looking at a
frequency distribution of responses. Table 2 shows the data is a collapsed
form. (Responses 1 – 3 on the seven-point scale were collapsed under the
heading of "not serious." Responses of 4 were recoded as "neutral."
Responses 5 – 7 were collapsed under the heading of "serious.")
Table 2
News managers' assessments of the seriousness of errors
Not Serious Neutral Serious
Factual errors
Mispronounced name 30% 27% 43%
Misspelled name 12% 21% 67%
Incorrect name 1% 8% 91%
Incorrect numbers 1% 7% 92%
Incorrect facts 0% 6% 94%
Subjective errors
Important information left out 36% 20% 44%
Information distorted 3% 9% 88%
Incorrect tease 10% 16% 73%
Inflated importance 34% 36% 30%
Notes: n=75. Original data was coded using a seven-point scale (7=most
serious, 1= least serious, 4 – in the middle.) Data for this table is
collapsed into three categories.
As indicated, the percentage of responses in the "not serious" column is
higher for subjective errors.
Q2: How often have various types of errors occurred in news managers'
newsrooms?
Dealing with newscast errors is a fact of life for television news
managers. Nearly half of the respondents reported that errors occurred in
stories in their newsrooms at least once or twice a week. This is in
keeping with earlier newspaper studies like Singletary's (1980). He found
that accuracy studies consistently reported errors in roughly half of all
straight news stories. Comparing the error rates in newspapers and
television stories is difficult given the distinct nature of each medium
and the relative amounts of information contained in newspaper and
television reports, but the responses in this study indicate that errors
are indeed an ongoing problem in television newsrooms (see Table 3).
Table 3
News managers' perceptions of the frequency of errors in their newsrooms
Percentage
of respondents
Every day 27%
Once or twice a week 50%
Couple of times a month 13%
Seldom 9%
Never 1%
Notes: n=54. Duplicate responses from stations (i.e., both news manager
and line produce) were eliminated.
The results in Table 3 underscore the need for formal mechanisms in
newsrooms to catch errors before they get on the air. The preferred method
of the managers surveyed for this study seemed to be script approval. In
response to an open-ended question, managers described the various forms of
script review. In most cases, the scripts are read by supervisors and
anchors. Scripts in smaller stations tend to be reviewed by the news
director. In larger stations, other levels of management conduct the
review. The reported level of script review runs counter to Tuohey's 2002
Newslab survey of reporters in smaller-market stations that found that very
few scripts are reviewed. Tuohey's finding mirrors another Newslab study
regarding script review by Potter and Mitchell (2001). A complete list of
the verbatim responses in this study is included in Appendix B.
Despite the reliance on script review, most managers agreed that reporters
are the first line of the defense in the newsroom for making sure that
errors don't occur, followed by producers and executive producers (see
Table 4). In larger markets, many senior news managers work on longer-term
projects and leave much of the day-to-day management of individual news
programs to producers and reporters.
Table 4
Staff positions identified as on "the front line" for catching errors
Percentage
of respondents
Reporter 59%
Line Producer 39%
Executive Producer 32%
News Director 30%
Assistant News Director 20%
Assignment Editor 9%
Managing Editor 7%
Notes: n=75. Respondents could choose more than one answer.
News managers were asked in an open-ended question to describe the most
common error in their newscasts. The answer in one word: spelling. The
mispronunciation of names by newscasters and reporters was another common
error listed. Other errors mentioned less frequently were the lack of
checking on the background of stories, a lack of general knowledge of the
local area, minor factual errors in stories, material left out of a story
because of time requirements and unintentional bias due to misunderstanding
the subject matter. A selected list of the verbatim responses is included
in Appendix B.
Q3: What are the employment-related consequences for newsroom employees who
commit errors in news stories:
Do errors have consequences? In the largest sense, the answer is yes.
Studies by the industry indicate that the cumulative effect of errors has
led to an erosion of the public's trust in the media. What about the
consequences for individual newsroom employees who make the
mistakes? Researchers have not investigated what happens when someone
allows a factual or subjective mistake to get on the air. Grizzled old
journalism professors might suggest that a young cub reporter should be
fired for making an error in a story, but in reality, the employment
penalties for errors in reporting appear to be fairly minor. The managers
interviewed for this study were presented with another list of hypothetical
errors and asked what might happen to reporters and editors who commit them.
The questionnaire included seven hypothetical errors that might occur in TV
news stories. The questions were presented in increasing order of
seriousness: (1) misspelling a person's name, (2) mispronouncing a person's
name, (3) reporting the incorrect location of a news story, (4) producing a
misleading promo or tease, (5) producing a promo that was factually
incorrect, (6) incorrectly identifying someone as having been accused of a
crime and (7) reporting that someone had died when the person had
not. Responses were given a list of seven possible disciplinary actions:
(1) do nothing, (2) issue an oral reminder, (3) issue an oral reprimand,
(4) issue a written reprimand, (5) suspend the employee, (6) dismiss the
employee and (7) take other disciplinary action. A very small number of
respondents said they would do nothing, even for the most egregious
mistakes. In response to the hypothetical situations, most would issue
verbal reminders and an occasional verbal reprimand for an error. Written
reprimands are issued only for the more serious mistakes. As one might
expect, suspensions are reserved for the most serious infractions. The
responses are listed in tables 5a through 5g.
Table 5a
Disciplinary action for misspelling a person's name
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 1.4%
Oral reminder 73.6%
Oral reprimand 23.6%
Written reprimand 1.4%
Suspend the employee 0.0%
Dismiss the employee 0.0%
Other 0.0%
Notes: n=72.
Table 5b
Disciplinary action for mispronouncing a person's name
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 0.0%
Oral reminder 86.1%
Oral reprimand 12.5%
Written reprimand 0.0%
Suspend the employee 0.0%
Dismiss the employee 0.0%
Other* 1.4%
Notes: n=72. *Other responses listed in Appendix C
Table 5c
Disciplinary action for reporting incorrect location of story
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 0.0%
Oral reminder 45.1%
Oral reprimand 45.1%
Written reprimand 0.0%
Suspend the employee 0.0%
Dismiss the employee 0.0%
Other* 1.4%
Notes: n=71. *Other responses listed in Appendix C
Table 5d
Disciplinary action for producing misleading promo or tease
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 5.6%
Oral reminder 26.4%
Oral reprimand 33.3%
Written reprimand 23.6%
Suspend the employee 0.0%
Dismiss the employee 0.0%
Other* 11.1%
Notes: n=72. *Other responses listed in Appendix C
Table 5e
Disciplinary action for producing inaccurate promo or tease
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 0.0%
Oral reminder 17.1%
Oral reprimand 32.9%
Written reprimand 38.6%
Suspend the employee 0.0%
Dismiss the employee 0.0%
Other* 11.4%
Notes: n=70. *Other responses listed in Appendix C
Table 5f
Disciplinary action for incorrectly accusing person of a crime
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 1.4%
Oral reminder 8.6%
Oral reprimand 21.4%
Written reprimand 48.6%
Suspend the employee 15.7%
Dismiss the employee 0.0%
Other* 4.3%
Notes: n=70. Other responses listed in Appendix C
Table 5g
Disciplinary action for incorrectly reporting a person's death
Percentage
of respondents
Do nothing 0.0%
Oral reminder 9.7%
Oral reprimand 20.8%
Written reprimand 44.4%
Suspend the employee 18.1%
Dismiss the employee 1.4%
Other 5.6%
Notes: n=72. Other responses listed in Appendix C.
If these hypothetical situations reflect actual practice, then it appears
that the consequences for errors in reporting are quite low. It's clear
that no one loses his or her job in a newsroom for making a factual
mistake, nor should they perhaps. Very little of the discipline appears to
be formal or have any real teeth. Not surprisingly, the level of
discipline inches upward as the level of severity of the error increase as
table 6 illustrates. The table compares the seven hypothetical errors with
the six levels of discipline. (The other category was eliminated from this
table.)
Table 6
Comparison of severity of error with the severity of possible discipline
Increasing levels of discipline --------------------------------------_
Increasing severity of error-----------_
1.4
73.6
23.6
1.4
86.1
12.5
45.1
45.1
5.6
26.4
33.3
23.6
17.1
32.9
38.6
1.4
8.6
21.4
48.6
15.7
9.7
20.8
44.4
18.1
1.4
Notes: Numbers of percentages of respondents from tables 5a – 5g. The
rows represent the seven hypothetical errors listed in ascending order of
seriousness. The columns represent the six levels of discipline in
ascending order of seriousness.
There do appear to be consequences for making real errors. Fifty-eight
percent of respondents indicated that someone in the newsroom had been
reprimanded for making an error. The errors ranged from misspellings in
on-screen graphics to potentially libelous situations in which factual
material in a story was incorrect. In most cases, the employees were
issued oral reminders or reprimands; in a small number of instances,
employees were given written reprimands. In one instance, an employee was
fired after making repeated mistakes. Not surprisingly, news managers seem
willing to hand out more serious penalties for repeated infractions. The
verbatim responses to the open-ended question regarding disciplinary action
are listed in Appendix B.
Other Findings
There are no significant differences when looking at the various
demographic breakdowns of the data. There is an interesting observation to
be made, however, when looking at the responses to the first set of
hypothetical errors by gender. Women news managers tended to rate the
hypothetical errors as slightly more serious then the men did (Table 7).
Table 7
Perceptions of seriousness of hypothetical errors by gender.
Men Women
Mispronounce name 4.10 4.50
Misspell name 5.03 5.28
Incorrect name 5.90 6.19
Incorrect number 5.75 6.41
Incorrect fact 6.32 6.69
Leaving out information 3.85 4.44
Distorting information 5.90 5.94
Promo promises more 4.97 5.37
Making story appear more important 3.79 4.06
Notes: n=40 men; 32 women. Sources ranked the seriousness of the error on
a scale ranging from 1 (Minor) to 7 (Major).
Discussion
If stations are seeking a zero-tolerance policy for mistakes, then even a
single error is one too many. That goal is admirable, but impossible to
achieve. The amount of information that passes through a television
newsroom on a daily basis makes it inevitable that some errors will
occur. The goal for news reporters and managers alike is to minimize the
impact of the errors and do as much as possible to make sure that the most
serious, libelous errors don't happen. This study comes early in the
research of news managers' perceptions about accuracy in their
newsrooms. Its purpose is to paint the initial picture of this landscape
and not to draw statistical comparisons among the data. Still, the initial
painting reveals some interesting details.
Errors are clearly an issue for news managers, particularly those directly
involved in the production of newscasts. As noted, the major mechanism for
catching mistakes is to review the scripts. While there is some
discrepancy in the amount of script review actually being done, the script
review process itself raises several important cautions. The process
appears to be positioned to catch grammar, spelling and other obvious
factual mistakes. The difficulty comes in what the proof reader is able to
fix. Proof reading assumes that the person doing the proofing knows enough
about the story to fix it. What happens if that person is not equipped to
spot errors of omission or to flag important information that may be left
out of the story? People farther up the editorial line aren't as well
connected to the individual stories as the reporters are. Editors may be
forced to rely on a type of "smell test" to see if a story passes
muster. Several of the stations said that news anchors review the
scripts. This is especially important in those stations that enjoy
long-tenured news anchors that bring a deep reserve of institutional memory
about the community and prior stories to the process. One other issue with
script review is that it is not well-equipped to catch potential production
mistakes – such as mismatched or poorly edited video. None of the stations
indicated any sort of post-review of the finished production pieces to
check for video and editing mistakes.
The study points up the importance of stressing accuracy at the reporter
level and of the reporter-in-training level in schools of
journalism. While this fact is not surprising, it does point up the need
for training news reporters. Being reminded to double-check spelling,
pronunciation and numbers may seem almost rudimentary, but on-going
reminders of these issues are important. The levels of these types of
errors that were reported in this survey tell us that the reminders are
still very much necessary. As noted, nearly 60% of the respondents
identified the reporter as the person who is most likely to be the first
line of defense for catching errors. This fact is highly relevant for the
teaching of journalists, who typically start out as reporters but who often
think others will protect them from committing errors.
News managers don't view interns and desk assistants as first-line
defenders for catching mistakes. In reality, people in those positions do
answer telephones, make phone calls, listen to police scanners and check
wires and fax machines. Often times, these people are on the front line of
the information-gathering process. Any system to improve the error rates
in newsroom must include individuals in these positions.
In the verbatim responses, several stations shifted responsibility for
inaccurate promos to the promotions department. While this may be correct
in terms of the internal organizational chart of the TV station, this is an
artificial distinction that is important to station employees only and of
no significance once the signal leaves the transmitter since most viewers
still see the promos as part of the newscast.
The study presents some interesting insight into how news executives view
the differences between objective and subjective errors. Factual errors
are generally easier to spot – either a number is incorrect or it isn't;
either a name is spelled correctly or it is not. Identifying more
subjective errors, such as deciding that important background information
has been left out of a story, is more difficult to spot especially on the
fly. News managers tend to focus on factual errors, which may explain why
fewer of such errors get on the air and may explain why the sources in
earlier studies were less concerned about the presence of routine factual
mistakes. Still, this doesn't explain the sources' perceptions of
subjective inaccuracies.
There may be another factor at work. As Ryan and Owen (1985) pointed out,
subjective errors may not be errors in the literal sense as much as they
are simply cases in which news sources disagree with the judgment of the
news people. In other words, the individual biases of the public (or in
this case, the source) play a role in deciding whether or not a story is
judged to be subjectively inaccurate. A simple two-by-two matrix shows the
relationship:
Story contains some legitimate subjective errors
Story contains no legitimate subjective errors
Source's individual bias agrees with the story
Perceived to be accurate
Perceived to be accurate
Source's individual bias disagrees with the story
Perceived to be inaccurate
Perceived to be inaccurate
It is not sufficient to dismiss the concerns expressed by news sources and
the public as the result of the public's own biases. If stations truly are
interested in understanding how the public perceives the accuracy of their
reporting, then a systematic approach must be developed that goes beyond
the process of script review. Stations would be well served to adopt a
system of accuracy audits that include reviews of stories after-the fact
and occasionally involve news source's comments about the stories in which
they appeared. Stations routinely do audience research. Such surveys and
focus groups should include questions of perceived accuracy.
There are several obvious limitations in this study. The results are based
on self-reported research so the responses from news managers may contain
some degree of social desirability. Nonetheless they do give some
indication of how each type of error shows up on the radar screens of news
executives. The initial study suffered from a lower than anticipated
response rate. The telephone interviews were conducted during the February
sweeps and the buildup to the Iraq War. There are problems with surveying
news managers anyway. This is population that is over-surveyed and
extremely busy.
Further research is needed to explore the relationship between news source
bias and the perception of subjective errors in reporting. This on-going
research will help explain why the public's general perception of
journalism is on the decline. Additional research of news managers is
needed. This study provides a roadmap for refining the study of accuracy
issues as researchers continue to explore the complex relationship between
the journalists who report the news and the public that watches them.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Deborah Potter and
Newslab for their generous grant to conduct this research. The authors
would also like to acknowledge Kent State University graduate students Ron
Jongeling, Jonathan Judy, Josie Elseikali, and Annie Cui Peng, School of
Journalism and Mass Communication secretary Jeannie Waller and student
worker Kristy Miller for conducting the telephone surveys.
References
APME. (1995). Code of Ethics. Associated Press Managed Editors. New York, NY.
ASNE. (1996). Statement of Principles. American Society of Newspaper
Editors. Reston, VA.
Berry, Jr., F.C. (1967). A study of accuracy in local news stories of three
dailies. Journalism Quarterly, 44, 483-90.
Blankenburg, W.B. (1970). News accuracy: some findings on the meaning of
errors. Journal of Communication, 20, 375-86.
Braeken, L.C. and Huypens, J.M. (1977). Non-response to mail survey on
regional news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 785-86.
Brown, C. H. (1965, Feb. 13). Majority of readers give papers an A for
accuracy. Editor and Publisher, pp. 13, 63.
Burriss, L.L. (1985). Accuracy of news magazines as perceived by news
sources. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 825-27.
Charnley, M. (1936). Preliminary notes on a study of newspaper accuracy.
Journalism Quarterly. 13. 394-401.
Cote, J.R. (1970). A study of accuracy of two wire services. Journalism
Quarterly, 47, 661-66.
"Examining our credibility." (1998). The American Society of Newspaper
Editors. Washington DC.
Hanson, G. and Wearden, S. (2002). Measuring newscast accuracy: Applying a
newspaper model to television. A paper presented to the annual convention
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Miami, FL.
Kennedy, G. (1994). Newspaper accuracy: a new approach. Newspaper Research
Journal, 15, 55-61.
Lawrence, G.C. and Grey, D.L. (1969). Subjective inaccuracies in local news
reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 46, 753-57.
Maier, Scott R. (1999). Getting it right: newsmaker perceptions of accuracy
and credibility. Paper present to the Newspaper Division at the Annual
Convention of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication. New Orleans, LA.
Meyer, P. (1988). A workable measure of auditing accuracy in newspapers.
Newspaper Research Journal. 10(1). 39-51.
Moore, B. and Singletary, M.W. (1985). Scientific sources' perceptions of
network news accuracy. Journalism Quarterly, 62, 816-23.
Potter, D. & Mitchell, A. (2001). Getting it right. Newslab Research.
Retrieved March 24, 2003 from www.newslab.org/gettingright-1.htm
Pulford, D.L. (1976). Follow-up of study of science news accuracy.
Journalism Quarterly, 53, 119-21.
RTNDA. (2000). Code of Ethics. Radio Television News Directors Association.
Washington, DC.
"RTNDF journalism ethics and integrity project." (1998). Radio and
Television News Directors Foundation. Washington, DC.
Ryan, M. (1975). A factor analytic study of scientists' responses to
errors. Journalism Quarterly, 52, 333-36.
Ryan, M. and Owen, D. (1977). An accuracy survey of metropolitan newspaper
coverage of social issues. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 27-32.
Scanlon, T.J. (1972). A new approach to study of newspaper accuracy.
Journalism Quarterly, 49, 587-90.
Singer, E. (1990). A question of accuracy: how journalists and scientists
report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40, 102-116.
Singletary, M.W., Bax, G. and Mead, W. (1977). How editors view accuracy in
news reporting. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 787-89.
Singletary, M.W. and Lipsky, R. (1977). Accuracy in local TV news.
Journalism Quarterly, 54, 362-64.
Singletary, M.W. (1980, Jan. 25). Accuracy in news reporting: a review of
the research. ANPA News Research Report, No. 25. Washington, DC.
SPJ. (1996). Code of Ethics. Society of Professional Journalists.
Greencastle, IN.
Tankard, Jr., J.W. and Ryan, M. (1974). News sources perceptions of
accuracy of science coverage. Journalism Quarterly, 51, 219-25, 334.
Tichenor, P.J., Olien, C.N., Harrison, A., and Donohue, G. (1970). Mass
communication systems and communication accuracy in science news reporting.
Journalism Quarterly, 47, 673-83.
Tillinghast, W. A. (1982). Newspaper errors: reporters dispute most source
claims. Newspaper Research Journal, 3, 15-23.
Tuohey, C. (2002) Script approval process still lacking. Newslab Research.
Retrieved March 24, 2003 from www.newslab.org/tuohey-1.htm
Appendix A – Questionnaire
TELEVISON NEWS ACCURACY PROJECT
Check the Appropriate Box
Call Letters:
News Manager
Line Producer
Interviewee Name:
Interviewee Title:
Date Interview Conducted:
Interview Conducted By:
Questionnaire #
Date Data Entered:
Main Station Telephone Number
(From the master call list)
Newsroom Telephone Number
Alternate Telephone Number
Title
Name
News Director
Assistant News Director
Managing Editor
Executive Producer
Line Producers
Call Back Log
Date of Call:
Time:
Name:
Call Back Again
My name is ___________________. I'm conducting interviews for a research
project sponsored by Newslab in Washington, DC and the School of Journalism
and Mass Communications at Kent State University. This survey is part of
an ongoing research study of journalism accuracy. You may have seen a
letter from us in the past couple of weeks regarding the survey.
You have been selected to participate in this randomly selected national
sample of news managers. This interview should take fewer than 10 minutes
to complete. You will not be identified by name nor will your station's
call letters be used when the final results are reported. The information
we are gathering will help all news organizations examine their procedures
to ensure greater journalism accuracy. The research project has been
approved by Kent State University. You will be able to stop the interview
at any time.
(1) Are you willing to participate? (If no, ask when is a good time to call
back.)
YES 1
NO 2
CALL BACK 3
(Call back response: _______________________________________)
(If NO, then thank the subject for his or her time and terminate the
interview.)
Thank you for agreeing to help.
As I mentioned, we are interested in the procedures that your station uses
to catch potential errors in news stories and promos.
I'm going to read a list of potential errors that might occur in
stories. Some of the errors may be considered to be more serious than
others. Please consider the seriousness of each one and rate it on a
7-point scale where (1) represents what you consider to be a minor error
and (7) represents a major error, with (4) representing the middle.
I will also ask if any of these types of errors has gotten on the air at
your station in the past three months.
I'll start with objective errors that most everyone could agree are wrong.
The first type of error is mispronouncing a person's name, such as saying
SMITH instead of SMYTHE. On a scale of 1 to 7, how would you rate the
seriousness?
(2) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(3) YES 1
NO 2
Misspelling a name or title in a Chyron or CG, such as spelling S-M-I-T-H
instead of S-M-Y-T-H-E. (Prompt: How would you rate the seriousness?)
(4) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(5) YES 1
NO 2
Reporting the wrong name on the air, such as CHAIRMAN SMITH when it should
be CHAIRMAN JONES. (Prompt: How would you rate the seriousness?)
(6) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(7) YES 1
NO 2
Getting numbers in a story wrong, such as Chairman Smith's travel budget
was $10,000 instead of $100,000. (Prompt: How would you rate the seriousness?)
(8) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(9) YES 1
NO 2
Getting a fundamental fact wrong, such as Chairman Smith is accused of
THEFT when he is really accused of EMBEZZLEMENT. (Prompt: How would you
rate the seriousness?)
(10) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(11) YES 1
NO 2
Now, I'm going to ask you about situations that some members of the public
might perceive to be errors. These errors are more subjective in
nature. Please rate them on the same 1-through-7 scale.
A story is edited in such a way that it leaves out information that a
SOURCE or SUBJECT of the story legitimately thought was important to
include, such as leaving out key background information about President
Smith's company. (Prompt: How would you rate the seriousness?)
(12) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(13) YES 1
NO 2
A story is edited in such a way that it distorts information or removes it
from its original context, such as making President Smith appear to be
ANGRIER or MORE EXCITED than he or she really was. (Prompt: How would you
rate the seriousness?)
(14) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(15) YES 1
NO 2
A new promo or tease promises more to the viewer than the story actually
delivers, such as promoting a major development in an ongoing story when
the story contains not much more than a rehash of old information. (Prompt:
How would you rate the seriousness?)
(16) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(17) YES 1
NO 2
A news story is told in such a way that makes the event appear to be more
important or significant than the event really is, such as covering a
mundane event simply because a celebrity is involved with it. (Prompt: How
would you rate the seriousness?)
(18) SERIOUSNESS (1-7)
(Prompt: Has anything like this happened at your station in the past three
months?)
(19) YES 1
NO 2
I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about your newsroom organization.
Who in your newsroom is initially responsible for the factual accuracy of
your news content? Please identify the individuals by title. Again, we're
looking for the first line of defense for checking for errors.
(Open-ended. Do not read the following list. Check all that apply. Prompt:
"Anyone else?")
20) NEWS DIRECTOR ____
21) ASSISTANT NEWS DIRECTOR ____
22) EXECUTIVE PRODUCER ____
23) MANAGING EDITOR ____
24) NEWSCAST PRODUCERS ____
25) ASSIGNMENT EDITORS ____
26) REPORTERS ____
27) PHOTOGRAPHERS ____
28) PHOTOGRAPHERS ____
29) DESK ASSISTANTS ____
30) INTERNS ____
31) OTHERS ____
(Other:_________________________________________)
What are some of the ways that your newsroom catches errors before they get
on the air?
(Open-end question. Clearly paraphrase responses. Probe: "….anything else?")
32) In your role as a news manager (news producer FOR PRODUCER
INTERVIEWS), how often would you say errors in stories called to your
attention?
(Read the following list of choices.)
EVERY DAY 1
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK 2
A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH 3
SELDOM 4
NEVER 5
33) In your newsroom, which of the following seven statements best
describes what usually happens after a significant error in a story has
been made and someone calls it to your attention?
(Read the following list of choices)
WE HAVE NO POLICY FOR MAKING CORRECTIONS 1
WE GENERALLY DISCUSS ERRORS AND MAY NOTE THEM
IN A DISCREPANCY FILE 2
WE FIX THE SCRIPTS TO KEEP THE ERROR FROM GETTING
ON THE AIR AGAIN 3
WE USUALLY CALL THE PERSON AND APOLOGIZE OFF
THE AIR 4
OUR POLICY IS TO MAKE CORRECTIONS AS NEEDED. 5
WE HAVE A CLEAR POLICY FOR THE TIMING AND PLACEMENT
OF ON-AIR CORRECTIONS FOR ALL ERRORS. 6
OTHER 7
(List "other" response:_____________________________________________)
What would you say is the most common type of error that happens in your
newsroom? (Open-ended question. Probe: "…anything else?)
Here are six disciplinary actions in increasing levels of severity that
might be given out to a staff member for making a reporting error: do
nothing, issue an oral reminder about the seriousness of making a mistake,
issue an oral reprimand, issue a written reprimand, suspend the employee or
dismiss the employee. In your newsroom, what would be the disciplinary
action if someone on your staff did the following?
34) Misspelling a name in a Chyron or CG
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
35) Mispronouncing someone's name on the air.
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
36) Reporting the incorrect location of a news story.
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
37) Producing a news promo or tease that is misleading in some significant way.
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
38) Producing a news promo or tease that is factually inaccurate.
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
39) Incorrectly identifying someone as having been accused of a crime when
that person wasn't.
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
40) Reporting that someone had died when the person had not.
DO NOTHING 1
ORAL REMINDER 2
ORAL REPRIMAND 3
WRITTEN REPRIMAND 4
SUSPEND THE EMPLOYEE 5
DISMISS THE EMPLOYEE 6
OTHER 7
(List Other response: _________________________________________)
41) In your recent memory, has anyone at your station been disciplined for
making a factual or subjective error in a story?
YES 1
NO 2
(Prompt: "If YES, can you tell me what happened?)
I'm going to ask you just a few questions about yourself. Again all of the
information about individuals is strictly confidential and will only be
used for reporting group statistics.
42) What is your title?
NEWS DIRECTOR 1
ASSISTANT NEWS DIRECTOR 2
MANAGING EDITOR 3
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER 4
ASSIGNMENT EDITOR 5
SHOW PRODUCER 6
43) If show producer, which newscast do you produce
5:00 P-M 1
5:30 P-M 2
6:00 P-M 3
6:30 P-M 4
7:00 P-M 5
9:00 P-M 6
10:00 P-M 7
11:00 P-M 8
OTHER 9
N/A (for news managers) 10
(List Other response:_______________________________________)
44) What year were you born?
45) How many years have you worked in the business?
46) If I might ask, what is your ethnic background?
AFRICAN AMERICAN 1
CAUCASIAN 2
HISPANIC 3
NATIVE AMERICAN 4
ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER 5
OTHER 6
(List Other response:_______________________________________)
CHOSE NOT TO ANSWER 7
47) Gender (DON'T ASK THIS QUESTION)
MALE 1
FEMALE 2
CAN'T DETERMINE 3
48) What was your major in college? (Open-ended question. We're looking
for journalism, communications, radio/television majors.)
Thank you for participating in the survey. Again, you won't be identified
by name in any way. But if you are willing, someone from NewsLab might
want to interview you for an article on this topic.
49) Would you be willing to be contacted separately?
YES 1
NO 2
Appendix B – Verbatim Responses
Verbatim responses
What are some of the ways that your newsroom catches errors before they get
on the air?
Reading scripts
Reading scripts
Have as many people read over stories (as possible)
Asking questions; everyone looks at everyone else's work
Call ahead and verify
Producers and anchors read stories. Graphics production staff double
checks spelling
Stories and facts are discussed and then proofread and reference searched
Different staff re-reads stories; several filters; anchor is final check
Have more than one person read story; checking wire copy and Internet
Anchors read scripts; asst. ND reads scripts; both ask questions; producer
and asst. ND check all CGs and Chyrons before airing
Stories double checked by reporter, anchor, ND and TD
Producer/anchor and ND reads script before airing
Producer/anchor or ND (looks at script) before it gets edited
Checks and balance; reporting doing story and producer looks at it. ND
looks at it
Three people – producers, anchors and news director
Reporter, producer, executive producer and assistant news director; second
and third set of eyes
Executive producer reads all scripts as does assistant ND
Producers and assistant ND proofread
(Multiple sets of eyes review the scripts)
Proofreading or spell-check in system; two people proofreading
Proofreading scripts by the anchors; management spot-proofreads scripts;
reporters realizing they made mistakes before they get on the air.
Producers go through series of checks; executive producer also checks
Second party and third party reads them; if sensitive stories we also have
attorney look at them
Producer proofread and (correct) them
Tiered system; reporter works on piece; producer looks at piece and ND
looks at it
Read script; question reporter; compare information from separate sources;
call interviewee and ask questions
Scrutinize the story though multiple people
More than one person reads copy; follow-ups verify facts; understand the
story before heading out the door
Try to verify with more than one source
All scripts are read before airing by news director and/or ME and anchors
Having stories copy edited and checked by manager
Each story read by senior staff; anchor, assignment editor or ND
Each script read by assignment editor, producer and anchor
Producer or anchor sits with reporter and goes over script line by line
Every script read by three people before it airs
Proofreading; several people, at least two, look at each script
Executive producer checks; news director checks
Read by producer and news director (to proof script)
ND reviews scripts reviews script or Asst. NW; producer looks and directs
reporter after airing the error
Asst ND looks; ND looks; producers' check
Script review process
Anchor, producer, assistant ND proofread
Reporters, desk and producers check (stories); executive producer approves
Copy editor; anchors read pre-air; directors try to look at supers
Go over many times by many people
Multiple people reading (the scripts)
Anchors proofing scripts; executive producer and manager proof, too.
Read copy before (it is) aired
Re-read and triple-check stories
All copy goes to executive producer before (it) gets into newscast
Reading scripts and promos
Stories reviewed by executive producer and ND before (going) on air
Reading scripts; asking reporters and double-checking with sources
Cross references; re-read stories; ideas are tossed around; multiple checks
Reading them (stories)
Goes through two to three people before (a story is) aired
All copy read and edited by news manager
Double-checking; multiple checking
Everything gets read (by someone else)
Script review (by) news director and producer
Managers read scripts before they air
Managing editors look at all scripts
Proofreading by others in newsroom
Stories triple-checked by producer and anchor after writer
Producers review reporters' scripts; newsroom managers also check scripts;
anchors also check copy they prep to read
Anchor pre-reads copy; so does producer; script approval by executive
producer or news director
Proofreading; double-check tape against script by newscast director
Managing editor reads and assist ND reads each script; editor and reporter
go over video; all information comes strictly from the desk
All check each other; re-read; checks and balances; graphics very
specifically checked; system spell-checks; newscast spell-checked three times
Good review by line producer; bounced up the ladder if questions occur
Editorial process; oral review of story; supervisor reads copy; all scripts
are read
Tend to rewrite and double-check scripts; two sets of eyes
Every script is reviewed by manager or producer
People in the know read
Afternoon meeting; ask reporters questions; get familiar with story and
direction they are heading; proof script
What is the most common type of error that happens in your newsroom?
(selected responses)
Misspelling on graphics or CG
Mispronunciation of names
Grammar
Incorrect dates
CG formatting (viewers don't notice, though) and story details
Not maintaining correct tense (grammar)
Retelling of background of story is done from memory, not fact checked.
Titles or location errors because (of) lack of knowledge of the area
Anchor misspeaking, especially on foreign story
Police and court terminology; anything legal (handing up a verdict when it
should be handing down.)
Spelling and grammar; name and place familiarity
Factual errors in scripts; saying someone is charged rather than convicted
of a crime
Misspelling on chyron; poor editing of video, writing technique. Current
focus is on story development.
Sin of omission; TV is so "time of the essence" that it often changes flow
of story
Poor writing
Miscuing video of story
Writing a tease to make a story better (more sensational) than it is
Mispronunciation; careless errors, like misspellings; less-that-attentive
editing; unintentional bias due to misunderstanding subject matter
Lack or loss of (information)
Simple factual errors
Spelling; numbers; low-level factual errors
Something that is uncatchable by a reviewer; something a source says that
cannot be known by a producer; something presented as a fact.
Misspelling, perhaps not only a newsroom problems because operations
(dept.) involved
Appendix C – Responses to other category
Written reminder
Tough to answer
Discrepancy report every day
General Manager would reprimand employee
News director would make the call. Promotions department is on its own
Written plus verbal reprimand
Decided on a case-by-case basis
No policy needed because the event (reporting that someone had died) never
happens
If problems are continuing, then the level of discipline increases
News director writes the promos, so problems with promos are not an issue
Depends on the severity of the error
Depends on the history of the person
Written reprimand and possible additional action for serious errors
Go whine to the promotions department
Promotions department would have to handle the problem
Yell and scream!
If sued, then fired
Never had the problem at the station
Problems with teases would involve other departments; GM would handle
Make on-air correction
Don't know; error has never happened
Oral reminder the first time, then oral reprimand
Written reprimand; after three written reprimands, employee is suspended
Oral reminder and correct on-air
Total embarrassment for reporting that someone had died incorrectly
Supervisors of promotions department involved in promo problems
On-air correction
Oral reminder the first time; more strict for subsequent infractions
Review of promos should avoid problems
Employee may be dismissed if the nature of the error was particularly serious
Depends on who and what story
Oral reminder for the first instance; more severe if it happens again
Pull the promo from the air
Unsure of the discipline since the hypothetical situation has never happened
Producing a misleading or incorrect tease wouldn't happen
Misleading promos wouldn't be allowed on the air
Promotions department is separate from news; problem is theirs
Oral reminder most times, but depends on the errors
Teases not handled by the news department
Promotion department would correct promo mistake; news department can't
discipline them
Depends on the reason for a mistake; are we reporting the source correctly?
Oral reprimand for first offense if not a pattern of mistakes
|
