REPORTERS are hard to rattle and don't usually scare easily. Yet so many I've met over the years are more afraid of one little word than knocking on the door of an accused killer or asking the governor a tough question. That word can taint hours and hours of work, usually because of a simple oversight. The word? Correction.
The best way to avoid corrections is to have solid sources -- or to witness something in person. Recalling something from memory, fully trusting the Internet or going with something told second-hand might be the best way to ensure a correction.
"My first correction," we say to each other during long drinking sessions, as if we're in group therapy. "My first correction -- it really wasn't my fault," I might say. "Okay, I should have known better," I continue, getting past denial.
My first correction was because I trusted a Web site. I trusted my own school's Web site to have accurate information about locations for its school's graduations. Silly me. On top of that, I trusted it a week before the story went to print and didn't double-check it.
This week I cringed when I read several of this week's stories that used the Web as a source, recalling my own experience.
A Life article on Nov. 9, "A time out for teachers," quoted the University's Web site to define "leave of absence." Why attribute this to the Web site? Why not ask professors or, even better, an administrator?
One of the problems with this is the information that does not appear on www.virginia.edu. Saying the information is available on the University's Web site is in a sense using an anonymous source. The exact source of the information is not disclosed -- and it would be extremely cumbersome in a print newspaper to disclose that.
The net came back to bite the editors in an article about the University's secret societies ("Life's little secrets," Nov. 7). The Cavalier Daily's editors had to run a correction because they ran a fact published on Wikipedia that turned out to be a rumor or urban legend.
The editors should have known better than to trust the Web site Wikipedia as a foolproof source. After all, the whole concept behind Wikipedia is that it is written by the public and the creators are open about the fact that incorrect information can be posted instantly.
In the same article, the University Guide Service's Web site is sourced. I've got a lot of respect for the Guide Service. I think guides tend to be smart, fascinating, dedicated people and they are a great source for a lot of knowledge about the University. But they shouldn't be the sole source for information about a little-known organization, much less one that prides itself on secrecy.
As scary as the Internet is, I had a much bigger problem with the journalistic practices displayed in last Monday's paper. The News article "Darden School criticized over revenue sources" was about criticisms the school received from a professor from the University of California at Berkeley during a conference.
The problem is, no reporter actually went to the conference.
Bigger problem: They didn't speak with the professor, David Kirp. The reporter called Kirp once but did not leave a message, Editor-in-Chief Patrick Harvey said. Saying that Kirp was not available for comment was disingenuous and downright misleading. In an e-mail, Harvey said he "will make it VERY clear to the News staff" what the policy is to avoid future problems.
Reached for comment Friday night, Kirp said he was disappointed by the journalistic practices in this instance.
Without contacting him, the reporter is leaving out a significant voice from the story. Plus, as is the case with many academic issues and conflicts, the topic at hand is extremely complex and could easily be confused or misinterpreted in the game of telephone played in the article.
Even worse, the lead editorial on Friday ("Defending Darden," Nov. 11), bashes Kirp's argument.
The article says Kirp was not available for comment. How much time was the man given? Was he e-mailed? Were messages left for him at his office or home? This type of disclosure will give readers a better understanding of the reporter's efforts and is standard practice in professional journalism.
It all comes down to sourcing. Newspaper reporters get information straight from the horse's mouth, not from a Web site or a pamphlet or another news organization. Witnesses are okay to rely on for a crime or when absolutely necessary, but not to recap a complex issue at an academic conference.
Lisa Fleisher can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
