Anyone here work at a paper that has a written "accuracy policy"? How does that work?

How accuracy works ought to be pretty damn obvious. Is this Houston Chronicle editor Jeff Cohen's latest schtick? A written policy needn't be more than three words. Get it right.<p>[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: jmcg ]</p>

I don't know whose idea this is, but I doubt it came from on high. The person who told me about the idea said "several large papers" have such a policy. I remain skeptical.

Any number of papers lage and small enforce accuracy policies -- that is, they strive to get it right -- without engaging in such bureaucratic silliness.

When I read "accuracy policy" I see "policy for punishing those who fail to uphold accuracy." I've seen a lot of policy created when there fails to be someone to hold accountable for mistakes, or when the person responsible cannot be punished to the satisfaction of the editor.<p>[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: Kawtry ]</p>

I'm all for "accuracy policies" that insist on supported leads, accurate quotes, and proper attribution and only the rare, justified use of anonymous sources -- with permission.<p>Also, I favor written policies to keep reporters from saying they "didn't know" that stealing from Web sites, books, magazines or papers is plagiarism and therefore wrong.<p>Otherwise: Get it right and keep it tight.

I can only say that I've been told that "perfect accuracy" is what's needed which, of course, makes me wonder what imperfect accuracy is.

<blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:
I'm all for "accuracy policies" that insist on supported leads, accurate quotes, and proper attribution and only the rare, justified use of anonymous sources -- with permission.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Isn't so much of that an implied, understood, de facto policy at any decent paper already? Yeah, a written policy about unnamed sources probably makes sense, though they're bound to be obtuse, impractical and enforced in a wildly inconsistent way. While we're at it, then, how about written
policies about competent editing and wise news judgment?<p>[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: jmcg ]</p>

<blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jmcg:
<p>Isn't so much of that an implied, understood, de facto policy at any decent paper already? Yeah, a written policy about unnamed sources probably makes sense, though they're bound to be obtuse, impractical and enforced in a wildly inconsistent way. While we're at it, then, how about written
policies about competent editing and wise news judgment?<p>[ September 03, 2003: Message edited by: jmcg ]<hr></blockquote><p>I'm just looking to take away the excuses I hear, and to encourage training.

Here's my fear, Wayne. It's that such formal, published policies will replace effective training. Maybe they have already. This business has better bureaucrats than editors, surely.

Here was the original question:<p> <blockquote><font size="1" face="TImes, TimesNR, serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by jbm:
Anyone here work at a paper that has a written "accuracy policy"? How does that work?<hr></blockquote><p>Have we gotten an answer yet, aside from guesses?<p>We seem to have assumed that "accuracy policy" refers to rules with which muckety-mucks declare war on underlings. Most if not all of us have seen that sort of thing happen, right?<p>But what if an "accuracy policy" consisted of guidelines made clear to all, in areas in which anyone needing training got it?<p>We can assume that anyone hired to work in newsrooms as lofty as ours knows to spell names accurately, to get facts right, to support leads, to attribute info, to avoid plagiarism, etc. But how often do we on copy desks see these concepts, on which everyone ought to agree, violated?<p>Anyone ever hear from a full-time, permanent, educated, experienced reporter that surely it must be OK to lift paragraphs and more from others' stories? And then management all but blow that off, depending on who's caught, when the person pleads ignorance?<p>Ever hear that it's not a reporter's or assigning editor's or artist's or photographer's job to be accurate, because that's what copy editors are for? "What, me spellcheck? Me check an almanac? Me talk with someone else? Not my responsibility."<p>Ignorance and pride should not be excuses. Rules, blind trust, ass-kissing and ass-covering should not replace training, responsibility and common sense.<p>If management doesn't want plagiarism, make sure that a policy is known to all and make sure everyone knows what plagiarism is. <p>If management wants attribution, then say so. Make it clear when exceptions are allowed, and the process for getting approval before the copy desk needs to get involved.<p>If management wants accuracy, then say so. Tell everyone from the reporters, artists and photographers to their editors to copy editors and designers that all are responsible for their work. We shouldn't tell reporters to write in fill-in-the-blanks mode, but we can make it a rule that they spellcheck, for example.<p>We can assume that everyone in a newsroom knows how to do the job and is willing to do it, but we'd be wrong. That's as unrealistic as assuming we understand a paper's "accuracy policy" without knowing anything about it.<p>Rules are made to be broken, or not even created, because they can do more harm than good.<p>But reasonable guidelines, with fair and intelligent supervision and training for all, will improve any publication. More should try them.<p>[ September 04, 2003: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]</p>

The Plain Dealer has a formal ethics policy, a general policy that things are to be attributed carefully, and a corrections policy that says, among other things, that we'll run a correction on any error anybody brings to our attention and a database that stores the name of the offender and the training-and-development editor's assessment of how the mistake came about (in such categories as "brain cramp" and "incorrect assumption"), for use in seeking patterns. There is also a system of sending letters to sources that ask for their assessment of how accurate the story was. There are not that many complaints, and they're worked out with the reporter, I understand.<p>It all makes people a tad nervous, but as far as I know neither the letters nor the corrections have singled out any one thing or person to hammer on. Copy editors have something to do with this, since we have the luxury of stopping a story till we correct something that looks suspicious. We wish we caught more. For August, most of the errors that weren't a wire service's or a source's were the result of either a failure of communication with the source, a mistaken assumption (that is, there wasn't any communication because we didn't ask) or a botched procedure, which covers things like not putting the right cutline on the picture -- for ethics' sake, that comes from the training and development editor.<p>Lawyers would prefer that we not have an ethics policy, lest it be used against us, but it's considered an important statement of what we expect of ourselves. I haven't heard of someone fudging it, not that I necessarily would. <p>Accuracy is to newspapers is what infection is to hospitals. It's important and something you have to keep after, mostly in small ways like asking for the spelling and washing your hands, every single day. <p>It's one of the things copy editors are a great help with.