The N&O’s big boo-boo
Since I got my first job as a copyboy at The News & Observer 41 years ago this summer, my life has been inextricably intertwined with that paper.
But I’ve never seen the N&O do more damage to itself than with the front-page mistake on the Duke-lacrosse investigation.
Public Editor Ted Vaden described it this way Sunday:
The opening paragraphs of the story said Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong had proceeded with rape indictments against two lacrosse players the same day he asked a police investigator to look into whether the accuser’s injuries might have had causes other than the alleged rape.
That information was wrong. Nifong actually had asked investigator Michele Soucie for background information about the accuser on April 4, nearly two weeks before the indictments, not on April 17, as the story said. The N&O ran a front-page correction Tuesday that said, in part, “This error changes the implications of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and investigators outpacing the facts in the file.”
(You can read Vaden’s column here: http://www.newsobserver.com/691/story/470260.html)
In other words, the lead of a major N&O expose – blared across the front-page – was wrong.
Let’s put another shoe on this foot.
Suppose a public official had made a mistake of this caliber. Say, for example, basing a major decision on information that turned out to be flat wrong – and sloppily obtained.
Would the N&O demand a resignation? Editorialize that the public official should in the future turn those matters over to someone else?
Probably.
But what did the N&O do here?
No resignations. No firings. No dramatic action to reassure readers that the paper is serious about accuracy.
In fact, Vaden concludes that the reporter, Joe Neff, should stay on the story:
I think Neff should remain on the case. His mistake was one of carelessness, not of malice. Removing him would be a form of scapegoating, in the sense of blaming one person for an error that was allowed by a team of professionals. And it would be depriving the paper, and readers, of The N&O’s best journalism.
The N&O’s “best journalism”?
The N&O’s big boo-boo
Since I got my first job as a copyboy at The News & Observer 41 years ago this summer, my life has been inextricably intertwined with that paper.
But I’ve never seen the N&O do more damage to itself than with the front-page mistake on the Duke-lacrosse investigation.
Public Editor Ted Vaden described it this way Sunday:
The opening paragraphs of the story said Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong had proceeded with rape indictments against two lacrosse players the same day he asked a police investigator to look into whether the accuser’s injuries might have had causes other than the alleged rape.
That information was wrong. Nifong actually had asked investigator Michele Soucie for background information about the accuser on April 4, nearly two weeks before the indictments, not on April 17, as the story said. The N&O ran a front-page correction Tuesday that said, in part, “This error changes the implications of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and investigators outpacing the facts in the file.”
(You can read Vaden’s column here: http://www.newsobserver.com/691/story/470260.html)
In other words, the lead of a major N&O expose – blared across the front-page – was wrong.
Let’s put another shoe on this foot.
Suppose a public official had made a mistake of this caliber. Say, for example, basing a major decision on information that turned out to be flat wrong – and sloppily obtained.
Would the N&O demand a resignation? Editorialize that the public official should in the future turn those matters over to someone else?
Probably.
But what did the N&O do here?
No resignations. No firings. No dramatic action to reassure readers that the paper is serious about accuracy.
In fact, Vaden concludes that the reporter, Joe Neff, should stay on the story:
I think Neff should remain on the case. His mistake was one of carelessness, not of malice. Removing him would be a form of scapegoating, in the sense of blaming one person for an error that was allowed by a team of professionals. And it would be depriving the paper, and readers, of The N&O’s best journalism.
The N&O’s “best journalism”?