Are our unedited blogs resulting in erroneous information online?
The author of a new book on journalism ethics (The Ethical Journalist: Making Responsible Decisions in the Pursuit of News) says he thinks newspapers are making a huge mistake by allowing their staffers to blog without an editor reading behind them.
In a review of his book in the Philadelphia Inquirer, former Inquirer managing editor and ex-Penn State journalism professor Gene Foreman said he detests the unedited blogs:
“I’ve read arguments written by intelligent people who say, ‘Let’s let the readers be our editors, that if we get something wrong, they call us, we check it out, and we put up a correction.’ Now, this is really, really bad because harm can be done by erroneous information getting online.”
Most blogs items on STLtoday.com — including this one — are posted without editing. Some items of a potentially sensitive nature — like politics on Political Fix and Business items — are edited before posting. But even there, most items are considered “routine” and are posted directly by the reporters.
Is this truly a “detestable” practice? Are you seeing “erroneous” information on STLtoday.com blogs? (Keep in mind that columnists and editorial writers are allowed to express opinions.)
Steve Parker is the deputy managing editor for news, and oversees the Post-Dispatch's front page. STLtoday's online news editors are on his newsroom team. Parker has been at the paper since September 1980. 
typos–yes. Confusing at times–yes. Wrong or misleading–not that I have noticed.
I have been surprised by errors a couple times because the blogs and stories are not easy to distinguish, especially when I follow a link from the 3oclock stir
You’re kidding, right?
Have you seen any of the stuff pumped out about Health Reform and Global Warming over on The Platform.
How many times can you read “Obamacare will not lead to a single-payer system” when everybody knows that is the Democrats ultimate goal?
How can you take seriously that editor’s opinion about Global Warming when you know — and he knows — that the hockey stick graph is flawed.
Considering the recent Burwell debacle (i.e. leaving an unverified quote on the site for two weeks, with an “editor’s note” rather than a correction in the Saturday edition), I’d say the blogs are the least of your problem. Honestly, I don’t distinguish between the blogs and the edited portion of your paper/website anymore. I don’t buy the paper anymore, and I essentially use the online edition for local information (i.e. i64 updates, restaurant reviews and previously sports). I really don’t trust the news division and, sadly, I don’t really have much respect for even the sports division at this point.
Both of the above examples have little to do with blogs. They would have gone out like they did in the normal course of events. But you don’t have to look at the web stories long to see numerous mistakes corrected by commenters.
So, the question is: Why aren’t these things edited? Do you really think the extra 10-20 minutes matters as much as getting it right?
I know you’re understaffed. But if the Web is the future, don’t you want to be known as a quality online source of information?
Considering the recent Burwell debacle…
it’s reallllly time to let this go, folks. While using an unverified quote is “sloppy,” let’s consider it within a larger context, shall we? Rush Limbaugh is hardly a “dignified gentleman” whose character was irrepairably damaged–and considering that he maligns and demeans not just individuals but entire groups of people on a daily basis, the indignation seems a bit self-righteous. Secondly, there are soooo many Limbaugh quotes that ARE verifiable (many from his own archives) that to continue this cry of “foul” just doesn’t wash. The overall message or theme of Burwell’s column was quite accurate in terms of Rush’s playbook and ideology.
Blogs, just as any other source of information should be taken within context in terms of the author and his/her background and agenda. And that goes for a Keith Olbermann as much as it does a Bill O’Reilly.
“it’s reallllly time to let this go, folks.”
That’s quite a post from someone who wants to let it go.
I’ve made the assumption that the blogs are truthful in that they reflect the natural bias of the author him/herself.
They represents the truth - as the author sees the truth. In other words, the stories found in, say, ‘A Conversation About Race’ tend to reflect a liberal ideological worldview on racial issues. That’s just the way it is - but I can deal with that.
What saddens me about this profession is when people like Bryan Burwell use deliberately false (and heinous) quotations supposedly uttered by talk-show host Rush Limbaugh towards blacks. When confronted by this, Mr. Burwell responded in a ‘retracting’ column - that wasn’t very ‘retracting.’
Even when Mr. Burwell discovered the truth, he wasn’t apologetic for not communicating the truth to his readers. He simply moved on to other Limbaugh quotations - and promptly printed them without context.
Having heard many of the broadcasts when the quotes were uttered, I know very well the context with which they were said. Mr. Burwell had no interest in investigating the reason for Mr. Limbaugh’s comments and informing his readers. His obvious despising of Limbaugh was so great, that the truth wasn’t allowed to get in the way…and that’s sad.
it’s reallllly time to let this go, folks.”
That’s quite a post from someone who wants to let it go.
It’s called putting it into context-sorry if that taxes your brain too much.
Having heard many of the broadcasts when the quotes were uttered, I know very well the context with which they were said.
So just to be clear…when Limbaugh says that we’re just supposed to “bend over and grab the ankles…and take it just because Obama’s father is black,” is there a context in which that ISN’T racist and offensive? Nice try-but there are some things that just aren’t defensible. If you choose to adhere to Limbaugh’s worldview, that is YOUR choice, but don’t be intellectually dishonest about it and attempt to “frame” his rhetoric into some sort of acceptable dialogue that is “mainstream.”
Just curious-when he called chelsea clinton the “white house dog,” in what “context” was that? I can’t wait to hear you explain how it’s acceptable to insult and hurt an innocent young girl who just happened to be born into a political family.
Your “argument” is weak and actually quite insulting itself.
Given that some folk choose to “cut and paste” from sites that most charitably be described as having a fixed point of view, and, given that these same sites may have bad, erroneous or deliberatley misleading information (read “Lies”), then an unedited blog is precisely where folk who want to spread such misinformation can go to do so.