Many iconic U.S. newspapers sport slogans that seek to explain their mission – and self-image. “All the News That’s Fit to Print” has been called “the seven most famous words in American journalism.” “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was an overtly partisan call to arms. But the most telling section of a newspaper’s true values is its “Corrections” page. That’s where journalism distinguishes itself from just about every other profession, routinely and straightforwardly admitting its mistakes. Who else does that?
It is a soul-crushing enterprise. A single misspelled name is all it takes to ruin an otherwise stellar article. We reporters may forget the topic of the piece we wrote last week, while the error five years ago is seared into our memories. But it is also crucial: Reader trust is the lifeblood of journalism. If you can’t believe what you read, why bother?
And yet, we do get things wrong all the time. Despite the self-righteous claims of too many news outlets, journalists don’t print The Truth. The “first draft of history” is necessarily messy and incomplete. What journalists have long promised readers is that we will do our best to get the story right initially and then set the record straight when better information emerges. This isn’t solely a commitment to high-minded ethics. It is also transactional: Journalists can so readily acknowledge errors because readers honor and reward our honesty. They forgive us our trespasses because we acknowledge them.
Unfortunately, this glorious compact between readers and journalists is evolving in dangerous directions, as news coverage becomes corrupted by the give-no-quarter partisan divide that shapes our politics. Increasingly, readers expect their favored news sources to advance their favored narrative, the facts be damned. And many news outlets, beset by immense economic challenges, seem happy to satisfy them to stay afloat.
A notable example is the stubborn unwillingness of major news outlets to correct clear errors in their coverage of the Trump-Russia investigation.
On Nov. 24, my colleague at RealClearInvestigations, Aaron Maté, wrote a detailed article highlighting a series of stories published by the New York Times and the Washington Post that contained “false or misleading claims.” The pieces he analyzed were either part of the entry the papers submitted to win a 2018 Pulitzer Prize for their Russiagate coverage or were written by reporters who shared in that honor. Significantly, the major errors and misleading assertions identified by Maté were not based on newly discovered information, but on documents and statements long in the public domain.
Before publication, Maté sent multiple detailed requests for comment to the reporters and newspaper representatives. All but one of his queries went unanswered. As of Feb. 7, neither newspaper has appended a single correction or clarification to the articles Maté discussed. Here are two examples from the Times that reflect the problems Maté found.
