A reliable source has told me that ADN reporters are to leave corrections to their editors, and the editors did make the correction today on David Shurtleff's position at the Berkowitz campaign. I was also told that the ADN takes their corrections seriously. The correction was already in the works before I posted yesterday.
But as I mentioned in the earlier post, there are still questions about how corrections are handled - intentionally and unintentionally - for the online stories, which, for most of us, will be the story of record when we've recycled our newspapers.
The online story says:
...Berkowitz spokesman David Shurtleff said in an e-mail...
This is the corrected version, but there's no hint that there was an incorrect version. The best blogs will go back and do it this way:
...Berkowitzcampaign manager[spokesman] David Shurtleff said in an e-mail...[[MPB made an excellent suggestion to also include the date of the correction]] [[August 18, 2008]]
to show the original and the corrected version.
love that "a reliable source" thing.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been consistent about how I deal with corrections other than spelling, grammar or the like. I suppose I should do corrections in a consistent way, and your model of strike-throughs, combined with brackets, looks about as easy and transparent as they come.
I try to insert the date of the alteration or addition, too. WordPress does this for you adding the strike through and the underlining (for insert) coding, except the date has to be copied over for humans to see.
ReplyDeleteADN commenters have several times noted that the newspaper often makes corrected or updated stories into separate URIs which means that comment threads are displaced. Also, it is sometimes hard to find the difference in the two versions.
Not all story comment threads are worthwhile, but some are and readers add valuable information.