It's all very well for newspapers to carry a column of corrections every day but they do no more than scrape the surface. That's the argument of Norman Solomon who writes: "Some daily papers are scrupulous about correcting the smallest factual errors that have made it into print. So, we learn that a first name was misspelled or a date was wrong or a person was misidentified in a photo caption. However, we rarely encounter a correction that addresses a fundamental flaw in what passes for ongoing journalism."
Solomon goes on to challenge the narrowness of the US press news agenda in a series of spoof "corrections" which appear, at first reading, specific to American newspapers. But could they apply to British papers too? Here's part of his list...
* "Yesterday's paper included a business section but failed to also include a labour section. Yet the vast majority of Americans work without investing for a living. They are employees rather than entrepreneurs. The failure to recognise such realities when using newsroom resources is not journalistically defensible. The Daily Bugle regrets the error."
* "On Thursday, in a lengthy story about the economy, this newspaper quoted three corporate executives, two Wall Street business analysts and someone from a corporate-funded think task. But the article did not quote a single low-income person or a single advocate for those mired in poverty. The Daily Bugle regrets the error."
* "On Sunday, in a front-page article about the mayor's proposals for a sweeping new urban-renewal programme, the Daily Bugle devoted 27 paragraphs to the potential impacts on real estate interests, store owners and investors. Yet the story devoted scant attention to the foreseeable effects of the project on poor people, many of whom have been living in the affected neighbourhoods for generations."
* "Last week, the Daily Bugle reported on the history of human rights violations in Latin America without noting the pivotal roles played by the US government in supporting despotic regimes during the 20th century. Such selective reporting had the effect of airbrushing significant aspects of the historical record."
* "Yesterday, when the Daily Bugle printed a correction about an obituary, it supplied the proper spelling of the first name of the deceased's daughter. However, the correction failed to correct the obituary's evasive summary of his lethal Machiavellian activities as a top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Daily Bugle regrets the error."
* "For nearly five years, the Daily Bugle has frequently printed the headline 'Deaths in Iraq' over the latest listing of confirmed American deaths in Iraq. This headline has been insidiously misleading because it propagates the attitude that the only 'deaths in Iraq' worth reporting by name are the deaths of Americans. Such tacit jingoism and nationalistic narcissism have no place in quality news reporting. The Daily Bugle regrets its participation in this repetition compulsion disorder of American journalism."
Well, you get the idea. It's possible to argue that competition between national titles in Britain ensures that we are better served. From right and left, there are much more fundamental criticisms of our political administrations and economic activities. Then again, is our press not guilty of some of those charges?
