It goes like this: When the new media makes a change from an original posting, they correct it publicly, leaving a trail behind to disclose what the post said originally. When the old media makes a mistake, they don't. They often handle this by posting a list of corrections somewhere other than the initial post.This is an oversimplification, and gives the new media too much credit.
For instance, a local online-only news site here in San Diego posted a chart that had a key figure that was $90 million off. A few hours later, it was fixed, with no notation. Only when a reader commented on the surreptitious change did the web site add an inobtrusive footnote fessing up to the original mistake. (The reader noted that the web site had recently criticized the local old media outlet for making a change without noting it.)
Today, that Web site did it again. It posted a story about an award earned by one of its reporters. One of the editors was praising her hard work, and he wrote, "Her keyboard's always clacking. Her phone's always wringing." I read it, and wondered if this was an intentional misspelling. After all, the reporters I work with are often wringing their phones. But when I got home tonight, the sentence had the more conventional spelling, with a "ringing" phone.
I was disappointed. The pun was gone, and the after-the-fact correction was not disclosed.
Do I care if an editor goes in and corrects something like this with no notation? Not really. I'm not sure I understand the ethic that requires public flagellation for a mistake. But those who preach this asceticism should probably practice it.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment