NRJXXX10.1177/0739532918775685Newspaper Research JournalHettinga, Appelman, Otmar, Posada and Thompson 775685research-article2018 Article Newspaper Research Journal 1 –14 © 2018 NOND of AEJMC Comparing and Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532918775685DOI: 10.1177/0739532918775685 contrasting journals.sagepub.com/home/nrj corrected errors at four newspapers By Kirstie Hettinga, Alyssa Appelman, Christopher Otmar, Alesandria Posada and Anne Thompson Abstract A content analysis of corrections (N = 507) from four influential newspapers—the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times—shows that they correct errors similar to each other in terms of location, type, impact and objectivity. Results are interpreted through democratic theory and are used to suggest ways for copy editors to most effectively proofread and fact-check. Keywords newspaper corrections, quantitative, content analysis, chi-square, print and online newspapers, the United States, democratic theory, newspaper and online news division, norms and routines, copy editing n 1998, John Russial asked whether eliminating copy desks would invite trouble— or more specifically, if it would affect quality in newsrooms.1 Since then, the news Iindustry has continued to shrink. The American Society of News Editors reported Hettinga is an assistant professor, California Lutheran University. Appelman is an assistant professor and Thompson is an adjunct instructor, both in the Department of Communication, Northern Kentucky University. Otmar is an MA student in communication, San Diego State University. Posada is a California middle school teacher. Hettinga is the corresponding author: [email protected]. 2 Newspaper Research Journal 00(0) that the workforce of the copy desk was cut nearly in half between 2002 and 2012.2 Specifically, the number of copy editors in newsrooms dropped from 10,676 in 2002 to 5,675 in 2012.3 More newsrooms are also seeking to consolidate or outsource copy editing.4 Recently, Gannett combined one editing center from Texas with another in Arizona.5 The New York Times moved some wire positions, including copy editors, to Florida in 2009.6 This decrease in copy editors—“the last line of defense in terms of maintaining accu- racy,”7 according to copy desk chief Hank Glamann, who worked in newsrooms includ- ing The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and the Houston Chronicle—raises questions about errors in modern news media. Journalists and analysts have been assessing whether the lack of editors has resulted in an increase in errors. Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander reported that, “Growing numbers of readers are contacting the ombudsman to complain about typos and small errors” and noted that the number of copy editors in the three years preceding decreased “from about 75 to 43 through buyouts or voluntary departures.”8 In 2007, then public editor of the Orlando Sentinel Manning Pynn said, “August, September and October have accounted, thus far, for significantly more correc- tions of internally generated errors than the newspaper averaged in that three-month period during the prior five years.”9 He argued, “With fewer people to do [editing] now, less of that important work gets done, and the result is more published errors.”10 The Columbia Journalism Review discussed both columns and observed that the decrease in copy editors coincided with increased content: “Copy editors used to focus on a print edition. Now they have to deal with breaking news for the Web site, blogs, and other online content. Fewer copy editors are doing more work than ever before.”11 This potential for error also might be exacerbated by the 24-hour news cycle, as well as the increased use of social media as a news platform. With a news media climate positioned to invite error, it is critical to assess errors and their subsequent corrections. Such analyses could aid remaining editors in focusing their attention to common kinds of error that frequently result in corrections. This study examines four influential publications to determine what types of errors they are correcting. Assessing multiple publications increases this study’s potential gen- eralizability and allows the authors to address several previously unanswered questions: Have different corrections policies led to different types of corrections? Does article content or audience affect the impact of corrected errors? This study tests a new code- book created by Appelman and Hettinga12 and provides a snapshot of corrections in textual news media by exploring similarities and differences in those corrected errors. Literature Review In 2014, the American Press Institute reported that roughly 75 percent “of Americans get news at least daily”13 and that people trusted information they got from news out- lets more than information they got secondhand.14 In addition, the most trusted news sources were legacy media (e.g., newspapers, radio and local TV news).15 However, overall trust in news media remains historically low, according to a 2015 Gallup poll.16 Corrections and the Democratic Theory of the Press Citizens rely on news media to provide them the information they need to be free and self-governing. This falls under Dahl’s criterion of “enlightened understanding,” Hettinga, Appelman, Otmar, Posada and Thompson 3 which is part of his theory of democratic process.17 Dahl said that people should have an “opportunity to acquire an understanding of . matters”18 and that actions that sup- press information are, thus, counterintuitive to a democracy. Scheuer wrote that knowledge is most significant in democracies because “at least in theory and law, it is more widely diffused among the citizenry than elsewhere. Journalism is the most immediate and accessible source of such knowledge.”19 Subsequently, Scheuer con- tended that journalism quality and the quality of democracy are linked. As such, it is essential that news media amend the record when they make a mis- take. While Maier found that “sources overwhelmingly said they did not seek correc- tions because the errors were considered inconsequential,”20 Nemeth and Sanders found that an increase in corrections “may have improved [the New York Times’] repu- tation for fairness and accountability.”21 Scheuer wrote, “Inaccuracy . is among the easiest of journalist sins to detect and correct.”22 Because corrections are a critical mechanism for news media’s pursuit of accuracy, they are a relevant and significant area of study. Studying Influential Publications News media research often focuses on large circulation publications because they have larger amounts of content and are more likely to have searchable archives, both of which also help track trends over time. Elite newspapers also tend to have large circulations, which Lacy and Fico found could be related to higher quality.23 As far back as 1955, Breed wrote that small-town editors knew “that the New York Times employs many experienced specialists” and felt a sense of satisfaction in emu- lating them,24 although little research has explored whether small newspapers adopt policies and procedures from larger ones, especially considering staffing and cost issues. In all, previous research has used large newspapers because they have “a national constituency as well as a ‘corrections track record.’”25 This corrections track record is reflected, in part, by the standardization of corrections policies. The intermedia-agenda power of large and/or national media on each other and smaller media is especially well known. Golan in 2006 documented that the New York Times and the three major broadcast networks tended to cover the same nations and stories.26 Reese and Danielian said newspapers were quick to follow the agenda set by elite counterparts and that “the print media, and specifically the New York Times, set the agenda for the television networks.”27 Corrections Policies The Associated Press Stylebook, a widely used guidebook for journalism style and accuracy, includes several corrections-related policies in its “Statement on News Values and Principles.” These include style notes about how to write corrections, as well as notes about their importance: “Staffers must notify supervisory editors as soon as possible of errors or potential errors, whether in their work or that of a colleague. When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible.”28 Craig Silverman of “Regret the Error” noted that formalized corrections practices emerged in the 1970s, and he cited the New York Times as an early example of a pub- lication with a standalone policy.29 The New York Times periodically updates its 4 Newspaper Research Journal 00(0) policy.30 Its style guide, which can easily be found through an Internet search, reads in part: “. The Times recognizes an ethical responsibility to correct all its factual errors, large and small (even misspellings of names), promptly and in a prominent reserved space in the paper.”31 A simple search also yields a corrections policy for the Washington Post. By comparison, it is fairly difficult to find information regarding corrections and submissions on the Los Angeles Times’ and The Wall Street Journal’s websites. The “L.A. Times Ethics Guidelines” is available, yet it includes the following note, without linking to the referenced policy: “The Times’ corrections policy spells out in greater detail our procedures for handling complaints, corrections and retraction demands.”32 The reader representative for the