IN our edition dated April 12, 2009, we reported that Thomas Tolan, below, a current inmate of Maghaberry prison was facing disciplinary proceedings having allegedly been found by prison officials to be in possession of hard core pornographic DVDs.

It has been pointed out to us by Mr Tolan that he was not in fact found in possession of any such material and that he was fully exonerated by the authorities in respect of the matter.

We are happy to correct this matter and regret any embarassment caused to Mr Tolan.

The Sunday Times wishes to correct a number of inaccuracies in an article dealing with the Press Council last Sunday. The headline stating "Press Council attacks papers" was incorrect, and the statement that the chairman, Professor Tom Mitchell, had criticised two newspapers for not publishing decisions against them was also incorrect. There is no "stand-off" with any newspaper, as reported.

We apologise for this lapse in reporting and have taken steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

ON 11 April, 2008, in a report of a meeting of the Donegal Irish Farmers’ Association, addressed by Garda Sgt Paul Wallace on the subject of farm security published, we wrongly stated that Garda Wallace had commended Mayo farmer Padraig Nally for the way in which he defended his property.

We accept that we mistook the context in which Garda Wallace said that the farmer "did everyone a service".

Both Garda Wallace and the IFA have assured us that his remark was in reference to the farmer having successfully appealed his conviction and thus clarified the law.

By contrast, he did say, and we reported, that farmers should not take the law into their own hands.

He did not and would not condone the killing of an intruder.

We apologise to Garda Wallace for the embarrassment our report caused him.

A G2 article called the censorship from Twitter of the hashtag (equivalent to a subject line) "Mrs Slocombe’s Pussy" the worst outrage against freedom of expression ever. We should have noted the explanation provided by Biz Stone, the founder of Twitter, for the problem users encountered searching for #MrsSlocombesPussy: a programming bug means that Twitter’s search function does not work on hashtagged words of more than 16 characters. MrsSlocombesPussy is 17 (The strange case of Mrs Slocombe’s vanishing pussy, 8 June, page 15).

Link

The handbook is the guidance Reuters journalists live by — and we’re proud of it. Until now, it hasn’t been freely available to the public. In the early 1990s, a printed handbook was published and in 2006 the Reuters Foundation published a relatively short PDF online that gave some basic guidance to reporters. But it’s only now that we’re putting the full handbook online.

Several parts of the document address accuracy and corrections. Below are some of the more interesting parts.

Let’s start with "The 10 Absolutes of Reuters Journalism":

• Always hold accuracy sacrosanct
• Always correct an error openly
• Always strive for balance and freedom from bias
• Always reveal a conflict of interest to a manager
• Always respect privileged information
• Always protect their sources from the authorities
• Always guard against putting their opinion in a news story
• Never fabricate or plagiarise
• Never alter a still or moving image beyond the requirements of normal image enhancement
• Never pay for a story and never accept a bribe Link

Accuracy

The handbook has an entire sub-section devoted to accuracy. It offers guidance on dealing with sources, quotes, datelines and reporting rumors, amoung other topics. Here are a few of the "accuracy is" or "accuracy means" paragraphs:

Accuracy entails honesty in sourcing. Our reputation for that accuracy, and for freedom from bias, rests on the credibility of our sources. A Reuters journalist or camera is always the best source on a witnessed event. A named source is always preferable to an unnamed source. We should never deliberately mislead in our sourcing, quote a source saying one thing on the record and something contradictory on background, or cite sources in the plural when we have only one…

Accuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality. It can be tempting for journalists to “hype” or sensationalise material, skewing the reality of the situation or misleading the reader or viewer into assumptions and impressions that are wrong and potentially harmful. A “flood” of immigrants, for example, may in reality be a relatively small number of people just as a “surge” in a stock price may be a quite modest rise. Stopping to think, and to discuss, how we use words leads to more precise journalism and also minimises the potential for harm. Similarly, no actions in visual journalism should be taken that add to or detract from the reality of images. In some circumstances, this may constitute fabrication and can cause serious damage to our reputation. Such actions may lead to disciplinary measures, including dismissal…

Accuracy is paramount in our use of datelines and bylines. Readers assume that the byline shows the writer was at the dateline. We should byline stories only from datelines where the writer (or the reporter being written up on a desk) was present. We may only use datelines where we have staff or freelancers on the spot from text, photos or TV and we are getting information from them on the ground. Reporters or freelancers who have contributed to a report should be included in an additional reporting line at the end of the story, giving their name and location…

Accuracy means proper attribution to the source of material that is not ours, whether in a story, a photograph or moving images. Our customers and the public rely on us to be honest about where material has originated. It allows them to assess the reliability…

As you can see, accuracy is a lot of things. Here’s some advice for dealing with sources:

• Cross-check information wherever possible. Two or more sources are better than one. In assessing information from unnamed sources, weigh the source’s track record, position and motive. Use your common sense. If it sounds wrong, check further.
• When doing initiative reporting, try to disprove as well as prove your story.
• Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong. Before pushing the button, think how you would withstand a challenge or a denial.
• Know your sources well. Consider carefully if the person you are communicating with is an imposter. Sources can provide information by whatever means available – telephone, in person, email, instant messaging, text message. But be aware that any communication can be interfered with.

Corrections & Erorrs

Reuters is transparent about errors. We rectify them promptly and clearly, whether in a story, a caption, a graphic or a script. We do not disguise or bury corrections in subsequent leads or stories. Our Corrections Policy is outlined in this Handbook. Link

The corrections policy contains a lot of technical information that’s specific to Reuters. However, the Handbook does include some good tips for avoiding errors. Some selected advice: 

• Confirm the day of the week and the date.
• Check all the numbers – do all the components add up to the total, do individual percentages add up to 100? Double check the period covered, conversions, whether the figure is up or down. Watch for confusion between millions and billions, misplaced decimal points, transposed conversions. Check share prices.
• Watch the spelling of proper names and ensure names are spelled consistently throughout the story.
  
• Ensure the story gives full company names, full and proper titles, and RICs in both the text and header field. Check that unfamiliar RICs and web site addresses mentioned in the story actually work.
  
• Check for legal dangers and balance. Does the story cast a slur on the good name of an individual, company or organisation? Does it expose anyone to ridicule, hatred or contempt? Is the story balanced and fair? Link

Dealing With Hoaxes

One section provides a bit of guidance related to hoaxes:

Do a reality check. Does this information fit within the bounds of what was expected? Any wild divergences are a clue you may be viewing information in the wrong context. Link

But here’s the best part — a guide to not getting fooled:

• Regard all information you receive by telephone as suspect unless you know the caller. If you do not know the caller, ask for the person’s full name, title and telephone number. Rather than take it for granted that the name and number are authentic, check such details independently though an organisation’s or company’s switchboard, online searches and other journalistic means.
• Telephone the person back. Get confirmation that it was indeed that person who telephoned you.
• Use the same precautions with unsolicited material received by e-mail, fax, instant message, other electronic means, SMS or in the mail.
• Be on guard against April Fool hoaxes on or around April 1 and all fantasies such as the birth of five-legged sheep, human pregnancies lasting 18 months, the marriage of 100-year-old sweethearts, perfect bridge hands and miracles.
• Follow the checking procedure even if it means delaying a story until you are sure of its accuracy.
• Use nothing found on the Internet, even from what appears to be a genuine corporate or institutional site, that is not sourced in a way that you can verify. Many corporate announcements and much economic data are now released online. Reporters need to be familiar with how news sources in their areas of expertise distribute information. Be suspicious of online information that is a complete surprise or appears in an unexpected place. Ask yourself if this is how an organisation normally delivers news? If in doubt confirm information by telephone or other means before you publish it. Capture, save and print a copy of a “screenshot” of the web page in question in order to defend us against charges of printing nonexistent information. If you do not know how to capture a screenshot, ask anyone with a technical bent to show you how.
• We have no greater protection if we pick up a hoax from a newspaper, a broadcaster or any other third party news organisation. The damage to our reputation from running a hoax is the same and in many jurisdictions we are just as liable under the law. Link

Using Online Sources

Here’s what the handbook says about Wikipedia:

Online information sources which rely on collaborative, voluntary and often anonymous contributions need to be handled with care. Wikipedia, the online "people’s encyclopedia", can be a good starting point for research, but it should not be used as an attributable source. Do not quote from it or copy from it. The information it contains has not been validated and can change from second to second as contributors add or remove material. Move on to official websites or other sources that are worthy of attribution. Do not link to Wikipedia or similar collaborative encyclopedia sites as a source of background information on any topic. More suitable sites can almost always be found, and indeed are often flagged at the bottom of Wikipedia entries. It is only acceptable to link to an entry on Wikipedia or similar sites when the entry or website itself is the subject of a news story. Link

All in all, the Handbook contains a wealth of information about errors and corrections. Most useful are the tips for avoiding reporting errors and the guide to not getting fooled by hoaxes. There are also two pieces of timeless advice:

…try to disprove as well as prove your story.

And:

Accuracy always comes first. It’s better to be late than wrong.

On Tuesday I learned that The Gazette has published four news stories during the past month that contain passages that are substantially similar, and in some cases identical, to passages in news stories originally published by The New York Times.

For this reason, reporter Hailey Mac Arthur, a college student doing a summer internship in our newsroom, has been dismissed from The Gazette. The Gazette forbids plagiarism, which is the act of employing the creative work of someone else and passing it off as your own. None of the four Gazette articles attributed borrowed material to the Times, as is required when quoting the work of some other publication…

The paper lists the passages taken from the Times and concludes with this:

Every day, tens of thousands of citizens come to The Gazette and gazette.com in good faith, expecting from us in return that we will report the news as accurately, completely and originally as possible. That good-faith relationship is the foundation of all that makes The Gazette a viable enterprise. Without trust in our journalism, there is no business. For breaching that trust, I apologize to all Gazette readers.

When it comes to the integrity of our journalism, we owe you the same amount of accountability that The Gazette demands of public institutions in the name of their constituents. We will never be perfect, but we will always strive to live up to the principles of journalism and the trust placed in us by readers.

Thanks, Romenesko!

An article on June 30 about new state laws that encourage the recycling of old electronic equipment overstated what is currently known about whether toxic metals from nonrecycled electronics in American landfills leach into soil and groundwater. While many scientists and state environmental agencies warn that the potential for such leaching exists, the federal Environmental Protection Agency says it has identified no instances of soil or groundwater contamination attributed specifically to electronic waste in landfills.

The article also referred incorrectly to chlorinated solvents. While they are used in the manufacturing of electronics, they do not make their way into the products themselves and therefore cannot leach from them.

And the article misidentified an industry advocacy group that says it would prefer passage of a national electronics-recycling law to a patchwork of varying state laws. It is the Consumer Electronics Association, not the Electronic Manufacturers Association. Link

A photographer whose work appeared in the New York Times Magazine has been accused of digitally manipulating his images. Edgar Martins produced a photo essay entitled "Ruins of the Second Gilded Age." It showed abandoned buildings/construction projects and was featured in the magazine and on the Times website. After commenters on MetaFilter raised questions about the authenticity of the images, the magazine pulled the slideshow from the website and inserted this text in its place:

Editors’ Note: July 7, 2009
The pictures in this feature were removed after questions were raised about whether they had been digitally altered.

Adam Gurno, a MetaFilter user, is being given credit for helping expose the manipulations. He’s posted some evidence on his personal website and also did an interview with Minnesota Public Radio:

"It was an excellent photo essay," he told me this afternoon. "The picture of the framing is actually pretty striking. I looked at it and I said, ‘this doesn’t look right.’"

Gurno says he sent his proof to the Times but he only got a form e-mail in return. Nonetheless, the Times has removed the photo essay from its Web site.

How the ethical lapse came to light should be a warning to all journalists.

"When you work in computer programming…there’s a maxim in the programming world that says ‘all bugs are shallow to 10,000 eyes.’ It means if you have something open source and you let 10,000 people look at it, they’re going to find all the little things about it. Everybody’s going to approach it from a slightly different angle. And I think it’s the same with this picture," he said.

"I understand magazines Photoshop models on their covers and that’s neither here nor there. But when they actually call it ‘journalism,’ that’s when I decided to dig in a little bit extra," he said.

Gawker notes that Photo District News claims to have uncovered other examples of manipulation within the same photo essay. PDN also reprinted the text from the magazine that introduced the essay. Note the emphasis from PDN:

Last fall, The New York Times Magazine commissioned Edgar Martins, a 32-year-old Portuguese photographer based in London, to capture on film the physical evidence of the real estate bust in the United States. Martins, who creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation, traveled from rural Georgia to suburban California, visiting large construction projects that began during the speculative boom years and then came to a sudden halt, often half-finished, when the housing and securities markets collapsed.

Other media watchdogs are trying to get an official comment from the Times.

My guess is the magazine is examining the photos and talking with the photographer, and that it will publish a more detailed Editors’ Note once it makes a final determination. At this point the general consensus seems to be that the photos were altered, but the magazine and photographer have yet to confirm this. Either way, they should move quickly to make a more detailed statement. The story has already taken shape and doesn’t look good for the magazine.

UPDATE July 9: The Times has acknowledged that the images were altered by the photographer. As expected, here’s the Editors’ Note:

A picture essay in The Times Magazine on Sunday and an expanded slide show on NYTimes.com titled “Ruins of the Second Gilded Age” showed large housing construction projects across the United States that came to a halt, often half-finished, when the housing market collapsed. The introduction said that the photographer, a freelancer based in Bedford, England, “creates his images with long exposures but without digital manipulation.”

A reader, however, discovered on close examination that one of the pictures was digitally altered, apparently for aesthetic reasons. Editors later confronted the photographer and determined that most of the images did not wholly reflect the reality they purported to show. Had the editors known that the photographs had been digitally manipulated, they would not have published the picture essay, which has been removed from NYTimes.com.

And a post on its Lens blog offers this admission, in addition to other background:

A picture essay in The Times Magazine on Sunday and an accompanying slide show on NYTimes.com, “Ruins of the Second Gilded Age,” have been found to include digital alterations. The photos showed unfinished or unoccupied construction projects around the United States that came to a halt — at least in part — because of the financial crisis. They were taken by Edgar Martins, a 32-year-old freelance photographer.

A caption on Thursday’s story "Dying seconds that last forever” should not have said that video of the Palestinian boy and his father had been revealed to be fake. Debate continues on the veracity of the footage.

Thanks, Steve!

HI Craig, what  a laugh but thankfully it was a hoax. You can check the paper online at www.advertiser.ie/mayo. You can be sure nobody has a paper copy with this headline. Actually, it was badly done as the spacing is well out.

My original post follows below.

–

An image purporting to show a very embarrassing front page typo has been making the rounds online, but its accuracy has yet to be confirmed. Here’s the image:

I was sent it by a source in the U.K. who told me that "this catastrophic garble occurred in the print version." But an article on Irish Central reports that the image has yet to be confirmed:

The Mayo Advertiser, a small newspaper in the west of Ireland, may have — or may not have — just written the front-page headline of the century:

"Massive blow jobs for Belmullet."

The story — and a photo of the front-page — are racing around the Internet a LOT faster than the Advertiser’s presses.

It’s not that anybody outside the area particularly cares about the subjectof the story — that telecom giant Eurotel is cutting jobs in the North Mayo town of Belmullet, and that such a job cut would be a massive blow to jobs in the area — but to the eye-popping headline.

Was it one of those horrific typos that is every newspaper publisher’s greatest fear — the one that got away no matter how many proofreaders looked at it, the inside-office "joke" that somehow made it onto the printing presses and into the hands of readers?

The paper isn’t saying, which is probably not helping their case. The Irish blogging community has stepped into the mess, with many hysterical observers saying that "there’s one copy editor who’ll never find another job" to graphic artists who have been carefully eyeballing the headline and think they smell a forgery.

"Total Photoshop job," sniffed one self-described typography expert, noting that the alignment of letters gave it away.

"All I did was adjust levels in Photoshop to enhance colors," argued one." The red line and text from the reverse side of the page are out of place behind the word "blow" indicate it was pasted."…

And this:

Many town residents contacted by IrishCentral were thrilled at a call from "the States" but had trouble believing their local paper was the subject of such controversy.

Those who knew about the mess said it wasn’t an error in the print edition, but did appear that way on the paper’s website. None knew how it happened, or how long the racy headline stayed on the Internet.

"I heard something about it," said a bartender who would only give his name as Padraig. "But to tell you the truth, I don’t often pick up the paper."

The paper did run an edition with a very similar headline:

I’ll seek final confirmation. In the meantime, it’s best to not swallow this as being true.