Corrections and Credibility

It’s a truism in the world of journalism that corrections and retractions are important in the event that incorrect or misleadingly incomplete information makes its way into a story, as failing to announce such issues will lead to a diminishment in credibility.

That diminishment will then (over time) lead to a lack of trust in the journalistic entity in question, and perhaps even the field of journalism as a whole—an act akin to poisoning the well of reporting and reporting-adjacent activities (like news analysis and other democracy-reinforcing practices) in the eyes of the public these institutions are meant to serve.

Recent research suggests, however, that while corrections do reinforce the perception that a journalistic entity is accurate in their reporting, it can also diminish the trust their audience has in them and the work they do.

So corrections and retractions are a bit of a double-edged sword, reinforcing the idea that journalists (and the papers or websites or shows they work for) are legitimately trying to share factual information with their audiences, even to the point that they go out of their way to correct their earlier reporting when warranted. But because they did report something that was incorrect, the idea is that they might be perceived as also being less trustworthy because maybe what they’re reporting today will also be corrected or retracted at some point in the future.

It’s important to note here that the research from which this finding stems is based on limited data gleaned from a single, social media-oriented survey—so while the finding is compelling, it's not by any means gospel truth.

You might also look at this data and assume that it incentivizes journalistic entities to avoid ever admitting to getting something wrong, or maybe to just conceal their corrections and retractions as much as possible, maintaining a veil of journalistic integrity while also protecting their brand by hiding those updates in far-back pages and small fonts.

That said, entities that have attempted that kind of balancing act have tended to suffer heightened reputational damage when their desire to have it both ways comes to light, usually because other media entities (or folks on social media) call out their retraction-hiding, and that response (and perceived connivance) tarnishes their brand more than simply owning up to their mistake and moving forward—at least for a little while.

Taking the opposite approach of trumpeting one's failures rather than mentioning or concealing them also seems to be a questionable option, as while it will win over some people who value radical transparency in their news organizations, it may also create a general impression that this is a news team that fails a whole lot, at least compared to other news teams (those other teams likely making just as many mistakes, but not shouting about them from the rooftops).

The available (imperfect) data seems to suggest that, in general, journalistic transparency is good and helps counter claims of significant bias much of the time.

It would also seem that context-laden corrections do better than quick, templated notes that fail to inform readers about the circumstances in which an error was made. Institutions may be less likely to take a trust-related hit if they discuss what led to the correction or retraction and talk about how they'll avoid making the same mistake in the future, rather than just saying, “We got this wrong, here's the right information, sorry.”

All of which is interesting as it relates to one of the most foundational elements of democracy: making sure folks are informed enough to be capable of voting and otherwise participating in civil life.

But it’s also, unfortunately, not a space we understand terribly well, yet.

This sort of research is rare and laden with caveats and issues, and much of the data collected is subjective, anecdotal, and low-quality—so it's difficult to derive concrete lessons from the stuff we seemingly learn from it.

A lot of it is also conducted by, or with the support of, the very journalistic institutions that are being researched, which could introduce bias into the findings.

Ideally, journalistic entities continue to refine their approach of reporting these issues in order to maintain societal credibility, but even more important is investing in making sure fewer such issues arise in the first place.

It's not possible to catch every single problem before it’s printed, broadcast, or otherwise distributed, but tip-toeing closer to that aspirational goal would seem to be a worthwhile investment, considering the tradeoffs associated with the other available options.