CHECKING IT ONCE, CHECKING IT TWICE
By Deborah Potter and Gary Hanson

Every news director dreads the angry call: “They put my name on the screen over someone else’s picture!” It’s the kind of mistake that happens all too often in a busy newsroom but it shouldn’t surprise anybody who works in one. Few television newsrooms have a reliable system to make sure all the information they’re putting on the air is correct. What may be surprising is that some viewers give TV news pretty good marks for accuracy—but not across the board.

These conclusions are based on two studies: a national survey of broadcast journalists by NewsLab, and a research study by Kent State University, in collaboration with NewsLab. The results suggest there’s plenty of room for improvement when it comes to assuring the accuracy of television news.

For years, most Americans have agreed with the statement that news organizations usually report inaccurately (source: Pew Research Center). Opinions of the media improved after September 11, but our research was conducted earlier, and came to a split decision. The level of factual accuracy for individual news stories was relatively high, at least in the eyes of the people who should know best--the sources who appeared on camera in the stories. Yet those same sources were much more critical of the overall accuracy of what they saw.

We randomly selected news stories from stations in the Cleveland market and sent tapes and questionnaires to people who appeared on camera, asking them if the story got things right. Respondents said the stories were mostly correct when it came to factual information like name, age, date or location. For example, two percent or less reported problems with people's names (mispronounced, misspelled or misidentified). Six percent said the station got their job title wrong. But 12% reported some other factual error in the story, for example, reporting that someone worked “around the clock” when they did not.

Those numbers may sound pretty good. But can a story be "accurate" and at the same time, not quite "true?" Here's where the results are troubling. In our study, 18 percent of the sources said the introduction to the story was inaccurate. One person in three said that important information was left out of a story; one person in five complained that his or her interview was taken out of context, and nearly one in five thought the coverage of the particular event was both overblown and sensationalized. "I don't think they want accuracy," said one source. "They're just looking for something that sells." Even when you factor out the people who questioned a story's accuracy because they had some sort of an axe to grind, you're still left with a troubling number of people who got a bad taste from their journalistic experience.

Still, the results do contain some good news for broadcast journalism. Eighty percent of the people surveyed thought their interviews were placed in the proper context in the story and were not overblown or sensationalized. And the sources we surveyed perceived all five Cleveland TV stations to be more credible than the two newspapers that serve the Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area.

Accuracy is not something that happens automatically. It must be built into the operational system of the newsroom, and too often, as a separate NewsLab study found, it is not.

A survey of 246 working TV journalists revealed a substantial gap between the importance journalists place on reviewing information before air and the frequency with which this actually happens in their newsrooms. "It's rather haphazard and inadequate," one person wrote of their review process. "I pray that our 'standard of review' is not replicated often in my profession," wrote another.

The system works best for investigative stories and sweeps pieces. More than nine out of ten respondents said it's extremely important to review these scripts and a similar number said they are always reviewed. But while 94 percent of journalists said it's just as important to review daily news reporter scripts before air, only two-thirds (65%) said that always occurs. Eight of ten respondents said it's also extremely important to review anchor scripts, but only half as many, four in ten, said those scripts are always reviewed. "One of the big problems is that the people who write anchor scripts-the producers-are the same people who check those scripts," one person wrote, "and it is easy for people to miss their own mistakes."

A clear majority (71%) also rated a review of promos as "extremely important," but here too, the newsroom process fell short. Less than half (40%) said a promo review always happens, and a significant number, one in five, said their promos are never or rarely reviewed before air. "Our biggest pitfall is in promos when stories are just not presented faithfully," one person wrote. "The promo department often creates, prepares and airs promotions without even once consulting the reporter, or his/her supervisor," said another respondent. The journalists we surveyed did not place as much importance on the review of graphics, live reports or packages on tape. But they were still more than twice as likely to say that reviewing each of these elements was extremely important, as they were to say that it always happens.

The assessment of how well the system works depends on where a person sits in the newsroom and the size of the market. News directors were much more likely than their staffs to say that reviews of every kind of material are always conducted. What this suggests is that the system may be broken, and many of those in charge don't know it.

Perhaps not surprisingly, journalists in top 10 markets had the best overall impression of their newsroom’s review process, with 12% describing it as excellent. Only three percent of journalists in the smallest markets (151+) felt the same. What's startling is that journalists in markets 11-20 gave their process precisely the same lackluster rating--only three percent said it was excellent. "Too much news, too few competent people to review," explained one respondent in a top 20 market. "More shows, more live, fewer people=more errors," wrote another. "It's simple math."

The survey shows that while local television journalists care deeply about the accuracy of what they broadcast, many of them are working without a backstop. "In an effort to save money, many of the safety nets to catch mistakes and errors have been cut," one person wrote. "More than ever, the quality of the newscast depends on the quality of the producer, because there is no one to catch his/her mistakes."

Accuracy is a fundamental value in journalism. Newsrooms need to make clear that it matters by creating systems to ensure that it happens. A clearly established review process for all material in the newscast is one essential step. Stations also need a systematic way to measure accuracy, even if it is just an occasional telephone call to a randomly selected person who was interviewed. And they could develop checklists for accuracy for everyone from writers to graphic artists to underline the point that everyone is responsible for getting things right. Without that commitment, and despite the best efforts of overworked producers, too much can slip through the cracks.

Some newspapers have established useful systems for ensuring accuracy.

• The Detroit Free Press created accuracy checklists for eight different jobs, which they print out on laminated cards staffers can keep by their computers. The lists also are available online at http://www.freep.com/jobspage/academy/accuracy.htm
  
• The Kansas City Star has a “Verification Class” for all new employees, teaching people how to double check for accuracy. Yvette Walker, the paper’s assistant managing editor, says corrections are down almost 10 percent since the classes began.
  
• At the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, the ombudsman randomly selects stories and sends questionnaires to the sources quoted, asking them to rate the story’s accuracy.
  

This article was originally published in RTNDA Communicator Magazine, April 2002