New York Times aims to use technology to increase credibility

An internal committee at The New York Times has recommended a number of steps to help improve the newspaper's credibility with readers, including making reporters and editors more accessible through e-mail; using new technologies to track errors; posting complete documents and interview transcripts online; and even considering a Times blog that promotes interaction with readers.

The report says The Times needs "to be more assertive about explaining ourselves � our decisions, our methods, our values, how we operate." To do so, the report says, "the newspaper needs to create a new set of tools � tools that give us flexibility in how we respond to critics; tools that help us communicate with audiences that we currently make little or no effort to reach; tools that make the newspaper more transparent and credible; and tools that give our journalists assurance that they will be defended when they are subjected to unfair attack. This aim can best be met by making use of all our assets � the newspaper, the Web, New York Times television and ourselves."

Here are the recommendations involving the Internet, technology and media convergence (excerpted from report):

Q&A FORUMS

• Nytimes.com should conduct frequent Q & A forums with department heads and other senior editors and should set up mechanisms to give readers greater access to key source documents, interview transcripts and databases used in stories and graphics. The Web should also explore the possibility of creating a Times blog that promotes a give-and-take with readers while satisfying the standards of our journalism.

CONTACTING REPORTERS & EDITORS

• Create technology that allows readers to e-mail reporters and editors while shielding our staff members from spam and harassment. Every article on Nytimes.com should include a link that lets readers contact the reporter. We should carry a prominent �Contact Us� box near the front of the paper, preferably on A2, and on Nytimes.com every day. We should expand and maintain a staff directory on Nytimes.com that will also have links to the dialogue boxes that allow direct communication even to reporters and editors who are withholding their addresses.

Discussion: The Times makes it harder than any other major American newspaper for readers to reach a responsible human being. Making it easier for the public to approach Times people has numerous benefits. It sends a message to the paper�s readers � our customers � that we are indeed accessible. It also opens up another avenue for reporters and editors to get ideas and tips that can lead to stories. The links we advocated above for articles on Nytimes.com will let readers address Times people without opening the door to spam. When a reader clicked on such a link, a �dialogue box� would open on the screen. The box would forward an e-mail to the reporter without revealing a specific e-mail address. While we encourage all reporters to participate, the dialogue boxes could be programmed instead to forward e-mail to the department of any reporter who declined. The �Contact Us� box in the main news section and on Nytimes.com should list departmental e-mail addresses. In view of our experience with individual desks, we propose that all the departmental e-mails flow to a single person in the newsroom who will be responsible for politely acknowledging them and, when appropriate, forwarding them to the proper reporter or editor. We should also expand the existing staff directory on Nytimes.com, and actually maintain it.

CORRECTION-TRACKING DATABASE

• A newsroom-wide corrections tracking system should be set up to detect patterns of errors and take action to avoid repetition. An editor should be appointed to manage it. We strongly believe that the database should be used to identify patterns of errors and ways to avoid them, and emphatically not as a way to compile error counts or rates by name. The editor in charge would use the data to analyze trends in errors, to propose better practices and to inform staff training.

Discussion: Last year we published almost 3,200 corrections. We can do better. Our goal should be to eliminate error, beyond acknowledging it and correcting it. The proposed database would track the types and causes of errors that lead to corrections. The data would come from a mandatory form filled out by the individual(s) responsible for an error. It would include a draft of the proposed correction, with an explanation of how the mistake happened and how it could have been avoided. Raw counts of an individual�s errors can be simplistic and misleading. We are greatly concerned that making them a routine part of evaluations would breed resentment and undercut the goal of having everyone recognize that the system's purpose is to reduce error. Only masthead editors, department heads and the editor in charge of overseeing the error-tracking system should have access to names in the database�.

ELECTRONIC FACT-CHECKING

• We should take greater advantage of electronic tools, both for gathering and checking information and as part of the production and corrections processes. Instruction on using electronic fact-checking tools should be encouraged for all and made mandatory for new staff members and newly promoted backfield editors. We need to find ways to encourage tapping into the expertise of our staff. A searchable system should be set up to show names and telephone extensions of people with language skills or special expertise, whether military knowledge or an interest in opera or in firearms or car repair. We should make it easier for readers to contact us with complaints about errors. A form or a dialogue box on the Web should walk readers through the complaint process; the �Tomorrow� house ad that ordinarily appears on the weather page should be clearer about how to report errors in the paper.

Discussion: A technological deterrent to plagiarism has great appeal. Unfortunately, the current technology is not yet refined enough to allow newspapers to use databases like Nexis to determine whether material has been plagiarized. As just one example, today�s software cannot distinguish between a plagiarized story and stories that share the same quotes from the same press conference. But we feel there is promise. The Times has discussed these difficulties with Lexis-Nexis, which has begun a partnership with I-Thenticate, a plagiarism software company mainly serving academia. The goal is a new and more discriminating service that could, on demand, check our copy against all of Lexis-Nexis.

ARCHIVING CORRECTIONS

• Nytimes.com should improve its electronic posting and archiving of corrections. Corrections should be posted as promptly as possible, even before they appear in the paper. A correction should appear in the text of the online article, with a note appended to inform readers of the change. Nytimes.com should stop its current practice of keeping outdated and possibly inaccurate multiple versions of news reports posted for several days. The final New York print version, when it becomes available, should supersede all others.

CONVERGENCE

• The newspaper should improve our interaction with television and radio programs. We should devise a strategy governing when and where it makes sense for us to be on TV and radio; require reporters (rather than just encourage them) to consult supervisors before making an appearance; and provide reporters with TV training. Editors should be urged to monitor these appearances periodically and counsel reporters if they improperly cross the line into opinion, conjecture or partisanship.

You can read the full report here.

May 9, 2005 | BY JONATHAN DUBE

Site Map