140 The unIvErSAl JournAlIst

is not too crass, journalists who speedily hold their hands up and take responsibility emerge with reputations far less damaged than those who lurk in the shadows waiting to be unmasked. Those are the ones who are sacked.

With complaints from outside the paper, the first thing is to establish that the ‘mistake’ definitely is one. Sources often try it on, especially those whose openness with you may have caused them trouble within their own organisation. Many claims, especially of mis-quotation, prove to be nothing more than sources trying to cover their tracks.

once an error has been established, a speedy correction should be published, preferrably in a regular place. Some papers, such as the Mobile Register in Alabama, run all corrections on page one. At the cleveland Plain Dealer, the correction goes as close as it can to where the original mistake was published and is indexed on page 2. The Augusta Chronicle does the same and, if the mistake occurs on page 1, then that’s where the correction goes. Such policies are not an admission of weakness, but a simple matter of honesty and better informing the reader.

(Promptness is another virtue in corrections, but on a few occasions newspapers have not been deterred by the passage of time. In 1920 the New York Times publicly ridiculed Professor robert Goddard, the father of space exploration, for his claim that rockets could operate in a vacuum. Some 49 years later, when Apollo 11 carried the first men to the moon, the Times published the following: ‘It is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum. The Times regrets its error.’ The record, however, is the 199 years that elapsed between the Observer of london reporting the death of Mozart as having happened on 5 December 1791 and it correcting this date to 3 December in early 1991.)

Honesty is not the only motive in correcting errors. Avoiding a law suit is also a pretty powerful reason for prompt correction. Some years ago, the following appeared in an Irish newspaper: ‘In the edition of the Sunday Press dated March 18 1990 a photograph of Proinsias De rossa TD was published with the caption “prospective monster”. This should have read “prospective minister”.’ Similarly an English local paper ran this correction to a court report: ‘“Father head butts his son” should have read, “Father head butts his son’s attacker”.’ And this, from the Austin American-Statesman: ‘The band raging Saint bases its music on born-again christian principles. They are not “unrepentant headbangers” as reported in the nightlife column last Friday.’

You can almost hear the rustle of potential legal proceedings in the distance as you read these corrections. no doubt the editors who ordered them into print were well aware that speedy correction can help stave off a defamation lawsuit, or at least form part of the subsequent defence.

Gilbert cranberg, the former editorial page editor of the Des Moines Register, who surveyed 164 libel plaintiffs in 1987, found that most people who sued for libel did not originally want money. They wanted a

MISTAKES, corrEcTIonS AnD HoAXES 141

correction. only after they were brushed off by the paper did they then go to law.

However, unless corrections are being carried at the point of a lawyer’s writ, they merely have to recall the mistake and amend it. There is no need to grovel, promise you won’t do it again, apologise or launch into an explanation of how it was the regular editor’s night off and his assistant was feeling under the weather. A few publications, like American Lawyer, actually name the reporter and editor who made the mistake. others, like the San Jose Mercury News, go the other way and have eliminated any words of blame such as ‘due to an editing error’, etc. And there is, somewhere, a limit to what can be sensibly corrected. For instance, on the day after it carried a review of a new cartoon film, the Boston Globe carried the following: ‘In our film review yesterday, statements made by Sylvester the cat were erroneously attributed to Daffy Duck.’

Finally, factual errors are easy to correct; other types less so. Many complaints to newspapers centre on inappropriate or missing context, or a missing element which alters the overall story or the impression it gives. For these, papers can offer space in the letters page, or, more rarely, comment columns. To deal with such cases, the New York Times runs an Editors’ note to ‘amplify articles or rectify what the editors consider significant lapses of fairness, balance or perspective.’ It publishes about 25 of them annually. It is a useful device that deserves to be more widely copied.

Great newspaper hoaxes

In 1976 the following advertisement appeared in new York’s Village Voice:

cathouse for Dogs Featuring a savoury selection of hot bitches. From pedigree (Fifi, the

French poodle) to mutts (lady the Tramp). Handler and vet on duty. Stud and photo service available. no weirdos please. Dogs only. By appointment. call 254 7878.

The same day a press release from the dogs’ brothel was sent out, and, as stories appeared about the dog brothel, calls from pet owners (plus weirdos) flooded in. ABc began filming a documentary, requests for press visits came in and the story began to grow in other ways. The American Society for the Prevention of cruelty to Animals called for the brothel’s closure, as did the Bureau of Animal Affairs, vice squad, mayor’s office and various religious and moral busybodies. The controversy was reported with relish. The uS Attorney General even served a subpoena to the address of the service for illegally running a cathouse for dogs.