 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Busting Bias | Main | Unbalance at WNPT, PBS » August 17, 2007Could Newspapers Adopt "Total Quality Management"?In a post yesterday headlined Rarely Regretting the Errors, I discussed new research showing that the newspaper industry only corrects about 2 percent of the actual errors that make it into print, and wondered why newspapers don't implement one of the many "quality management" methods other industries use to reduce errors and improve quality, such as management guru W. Edwards Deming's Total Quality Management. Craig Silverman, editor of RegretTheError.com and a Montreal-based columnist for Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper, emails: I saw your post about applying quality control to newsrooms and wanted to follow up because I looked into the possibility of this for my upcoming book. The short answer, after talking with a few quality experts in the US, is that it can be done. There are already quality control practices used for technical documentation, and the process-oriented nature of print newsrooms (copy is written, then passed form editor to editor and then to production) is well-suited to applying quality principles. I'm not aware of any news organization that has worked to apply quality control principles to its operations, but I agree wholeheartedly that it can should be done. I think it could have a demonstrable effect on accuracy and the overall quality of reporting. So I'm really glad to see you raise the idea.Silverman's forthcoming book, Regret the Error: How Media Mistakes Pollute the Press and Imperil Free Speech, is scheduled to be published November 1 by Union Square Press. This post also cross-posted at NewsBusters. Posted in Journalism & Media
Comments
In my opinion, anyone involved in politics long enough has been to a meeting covered by the press. What is frustrating is that to read the reporters article the next day, their description of the events in no way resembles what transpired. It forces you to ask yourself if they attended the same meeting you did, or are they just that poor a writer. The poor accounts and writing far exceed the "Spinning" of the story to meet a liberal or conservative bent. The factual errors are at times shocking. I view the news services as a sort of "Umpire" in the game... they ought to be fair and impartial observers rather than advocates for one side. I believe their advocacy causes them to make the "leaps" they make, causing factual errors. Over time this behavior has diminished their credibility to the point they are hemorrhaging readership and viewership. After all...why do you buy a paper or watch and listen to a show? Because you value their credibility. If not, buy an Enquirer. Posted by: Jon Crisp at August 20, 2007 9:30 AMThis is one of the nicest ways of pretending that errors and mistakes are just random and have nothing to due with deliberate misinformation and propaganda. When an alleged fair coin is tossed again and again but still comes up with the same face, one must eventually abandon the assumption that the coin, the tosser or both deserves being called "fair." Checking facts is labor intensive. So is correcting mistakes. The press is more likely to check the fax machine for the latest news from the lobbyist than check the facts from the lobbyist. Posted by: Danny L. Newton at August 20, 2007 12:43 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
