The Washington Post

pa2012.com is proud to partner with The Washington Post in bringing our originally reported insider political news to a wide audience of decision makers and opinion leaders across the country.

Close it

More editing errors, and how we’ll fix ‘em

Yours truly had another screw up last week, the kind that reflects poorly on our hard-working reporters. We recently copped to a couple of these sorts of mistakes—errors created in the editing process. But acknowleding them is one thing. It’s more important to prevent them from happening in the first place.

With that in mind, we’re announcing a couple new editorial policies we think will help.

But first, the latest clarification (and the usual reminder that you can view all corrections and clarifications by clicking on the Corrections tag):

•Because of an editing error, an article on June 21 about Republican Lou Barletta’s criticism that Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-11) isn’t holding summer town hall meetings omitted key context about Kanjorski’s forum with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, including that it is a town-hall style meeting, open to the public to provide constituents, his office says, an opportunity to ask questions of a group that plays a role in investor education and consumer protection.

Now, it’s critical that these mistakes be much more rare than they have been. With that in mind, pa2010.com is making two editorial policy changes. First, as often as time and logistics allow, the edited versions of stories will be reviewed by reporters before publication, allowing a chance to catch errors created in the editing process. Second, reporters will save their own original versions of articles filed. This way, if mistakes do happen, the source of those errors can be identified accurately and promptly, allowing for quick correction.

Thanks for your trust folks. We’ll continue to do everything we can to earn it.

share001btn More editing errors, and how well fix em

June 28, 2010 at 6:45 am

--Dan Hirschhorn

Tags: ,

comments

comments [3] | post a comment

  1. Greg K., PA

    Jun 28th, 2010

    Excellent – I appreciate your transparency and commitment.

  2. Bruce Bailey

    Jun 28th, 2010

    Dan —
    Edits after posting are probably unavoidable, especially with the volume of info you provide. Why not just make the needed changes, and then post an update at the bottom of the original piece noting what changed and why? You could avoid the distraction of posting separate items that way, and I don’t think anyone would object. Plus, if anyone wanted to comment on the revision, it would happen within the comments on the original, which is as it should be.

    Keep up the good work.

  3. Dan Hirschhorn

    Jun 28th, 2010

    Hey Bruce,

    Absolutely, that’s the way we do it and we’ll continue to handle updates the same way.

    However, we want to do everything we can to avoid these mistakes in the first place. And in the case of the following error, a clarification appended to the story a week later would have barely been noticed by anyone. That’s why we think it’s important, most of the time, to post these corrections/clarifications as separate items. That way, we’re being fully accountable.

    Thanks for the feedback, as always.

    Dan Hirschhorn

Leave a Reply


- will not be published