A chance to comment on the news

The news that Google will start to allow sources in news articles to comment on the final article has yielded all sorts of comments, most about how this is potentially going to harm the integrity of the articles. (Other commentators wonder if Google really knows what it's getting itself into arbitrating disputes and verifying the identify of those who claim they've been misquoted.)

Be that as it may, it's in my view a commentary on how the world feels it has been treated by the media. Traditionally it's been very hard for those quoted in articles to set the record straight. (I am not talking about disagreements over the intent of the story but over basic facts. The former is something that will always happen.)

Now quoted sources have a chance to publish their comments (supposedly unedited) for the world to judge for themselves.

Until now someone who felt they had been wronged had to contact the publication and convince a defensive editor that the reporter had erred. It usually ended with no resolution. If pushed, the newspaper would print a correction or would tell the aggrieved party to write a letter to the editor, which most times got heavily edited.

In several previous jobs I recall the editor resisting as much as possible the idea to print a correction. (This attitude, thankfully, has changed a bit, thanks in part to ombudsmen.) The New York Times seems to be one of the few exceptions. I also recall several discussions where someone suggested we randomly call subjects in stories to see how they viewed the end product. It was alway dismissed as "not cost effective." Translation -- they weren't interested in finding out.

In addition, it's been my experience that many wronged people who just don't bring up the subject knowing it will not lead to anything positive. (A fellow church member commented how the local paper quoted him and got all the facts wrong. I said I knew the reporter and was sure it was unintentional and that he should call the editor. "What's the point? he answered. "They'll just keep screwing it up.")

Google's experiment encourages more people to bring up corrections knowing the original party is not involved in the discussion and also knowing it will be seen by a much wider audience, the Web audience.

Newspapers, in my experience, have been very reluctant to correct what they term "minor" errors (spelling, title, etc.) but they need to realize it's those little things that set the tone. Errors there make the reader wonder how credible the rest of the report must be.

So you can't help wonder how much newspapers brought this upon themselves.

Update: Kara Swisher seems to agree. (Link to her post.)

Update: Paul Gillin has a similar take on this with an interesting perspective: (Link to post.)

Today, we have a new model. If someone interviews me for a story, I can post my version of the interview on my blog or publish an audio recording. I also think it's reasonable to ask the publication to link back to my comments or recording. After all, neither of us has anything to hide, right? This new approach to reporting would reduce the chance of error and provide readers with the option of reading a more detailed version of the information presented in the story.