Rosenthal's Legacy: The Corrections

By: Craig Silverman The achievements of former New York Times Executive Editor A.M. Rosenthal have been given the full court parse since his passing last week. His obituaries nearly all led with his reputation as a demanding, temperamental leader of the newsroom. They went on to praise his writing ability, his expansion of the Times' coverage areas and footprint, and his decision to publish the Pentagon Papers. Mingled with his personal peccadilloes and professional accomplishments was often a one sentence ode to Rosenthal as the father of the modern newspaper correction.

The Associated Press noted Rosenthal, "?began the paper's practice, now imitated by many others, of running corrections as a prominent daily fixture." The Los Angeles Times wrote, "When the newspaper erred, he insisted that it admit its mistakes in a daily Corrections column, which he introduced in 1972. He later added the Editor's Note, which addressed flaws such as errors of omission and lapses in taste and standards."

As former New York Times Assistant Managing Editor Allan M. Siegal wrote in the introduction to the 2002 collection of amusing Times corrections, "Kill Duck Before Serving," Rosenthal told his department leaders in 1970 that, "corrections or denials or amplifications don't really catch up with the original because they are not given proper display."

At the time, the Times, like many other publications in North America, ran its corrections throughout the paper. Corrections would appear in every section, in different places, written in different ways, and often under different headings. If you read the initial error, the chances of you happening upon the correction were slim. It was accuracy roulette.

Two years after Rosenthal's missive, the paper anchored its corrections in one place inside the paper. Now, the logic went, people knew where to find them every day. The industry cheered, and many papers fell into line. Today, almost 35 years after Rosenthal created the modern correction, you can pick up nearly any North American city daily, open it to page two, and spot one or more corrections tucked away in the bottom corner.

While an impressive legacy for Rosenthal, it also represents more than three decades of complacency by newspaper editors. The media landscape has evolved at an often furious pace since 1972, yet the correction has largely gone unchanged.

Rosenthal's successor, Max Frankel, is credited with his own tweak on the correction by insisting on standardizing how they are written. But the truth is that the placement, presentation and preparation of a correction remains stuck in 1972. In fact, there has been little change since the 19th century, even with Rosenthal's advancement. While the language was of a more ornate character then, early corrections in the Times and elsewhere are strikingly similar to their modern relations. Take, for example this correction from the Times (then the New York Daily Times) of December 31, 1851:

"CORRECTION. -- In our list of contributions to the Kossuth fund published on Saturday, we say, "55 Segar Makers of Duffield, Conn., $55.00." The Compositor has transformed Suffield into Duffield. It should read -- 35 Segar Makers, Suffield, Conn., $55.00."

Update the language and this correction could run today, over 150 years after it was first published. There is, however, one notable exception: This correction was published on page one of the newspaper. That wouldn't happen today for such a seemingly mundane mistake. So, really, how far have we come?

Editors are loath to increase the prominence of corrections, or rethink how to present corrected information to readers. There is a disappointing lack of interest within (increasingly skeletal) newsrooms to broach fundamental questions: Do corrections work? Are they the best way to ensure readers receive the correct information?

After spending the last year and a half reading close to 100,000 corrections from newspapers, magazines, websites and other media outlets around the world, I can only conclude that the answer to both questions is an emphatic no. The correction must evolve. The status quo of how to handle a mistake ensures very few readers actually read the correct information. They can't be bothered to scan A2 every day to see if something they read yesterday or a few days ago was incorrect. In addition to this barrier, too many corrections fail to offer a clear explanation of the error and an adequate expression of the correct information.

One personal pet peeve is when a newspaper misidentifies someone in a photo and then fails to identify the mistaken person. Such is the case with this December 2005 correction from AP that ran in the Fresno Bee: "An Associated Press photograph that ran on Page B5 of Sunday's Bee was not of convicted murderer Mitchell Sims." In this particular case, the misidentified person was also labeled a murderer. How nice for them.

Errors often involve a person. As such, a correction should be written with humanity, rather than cold calculation that ignores logical questions any reader would have. Who was the person in that photo? How did the mistake happen? Today's corrections are often too brief, too obscure. They read like the hurried work of an editor tasked with an unpleasant chore, or, in the worst examples, they come off as the result of an effort to conceal rather than disclose. The reality is corrections exist more to absolve a publication than inform readers.

One recent advancement, borne of technology rather than industry innovation, is that the Internet offers the chance for publications to place a correction within the story itself and keep it there forever. Unfortunately, an alarming number of newspapers are still without an online corrections page, let alone the commitment to place a correction within the relevant article online. The New York Post, New York Daily News, USA Today, The Oregonian, San Diego Union-Tribune and Detroit Free Press are but a few of the larger American papers that run corrections in print, but don't port them to the Internet on a set corrections page. It's a lapse that speaks to a disturbing lack of attention to corrections and accuracy. (It's only fair to note that broadcast outlets with web news operations are even worse when it comes to handling corrections online.)

The Times' most recent alteration to its corrections was to label smaller errors of fact as "For The Record," and more substantive errors as "Corrections." The paper also last year introduced a new corrections policy for its op-ed section. The former makes no substantive difference to readers, while the latter is beyond long overdue.

This isn't to suggest that the Times is behind the curve. Rosenthal's innovation in 1972 and the paper's effective use of online corrections have managed to keep it at or near the front of the corrections pack. Which is exactly the problem. Throughout the industry corrections have been tweaked but not reexamined. Shuffle the Titanic's deck chairs all you want, they'll still end up useless on the ocean floor.

Rosenthal's passing has brought the correction into the limelight. In the process, it has revealed the correction's stagnation, lack of innovation and current problems. Hopefully, this will serve as a wake up call to newsrooms around the world to rededicate themselves to accuracy, and apply their talents to devising a new, modern form of correction that serves readers and demonstrably raises the bar for accuracy and disclosure in the press.

As the recently enshrined father of the modern correction, it's perhaps fitting, and certainly not surprising, that Rosenthal's obit resulted in a few corrections of its own. In his honor, I offer this correction from May 12's Washington Post: "The obituary for A.M. 'Abe' Rosenthal published May 11 incorrectly reported the death of New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger. He is 80."