At the papers I've worked for, the way to get a correction was to reach either the Ombudsperson or the reporter's editor. Speaking very pragmatically, the reporter has little reason to take the time to get in a correction over his/her fact error, especially since most publications track the number of corrections each reporter has caused; conversely, an editor is in position of pursuing the point and running the correction if it's warranted. Don't bother the writer; contact his/her editor.Posted by mark at 9:33 pm on May 11, 2006
So, tmatt, how did it go? Did you get any response to your telephone message yet? Posted by Martha at 5:08 am on May 12, 2006
Just a brief update here from upset Orthodox land. I totally understand that the way to reach a newspaper is through the editorial chain and "readers' representative" or the desk of the ombudsperson. I've done that a few times already, in this case, with the New York Times.
I have ended up in a few answering machines and have received my fair share of automatic computer replies that look something like this:
Thanks for writing. Your message has been received and will be forwarded to the reporter. Because of volume, not all notes will be answered personally. But be assured that we want to hear your thoughts. Please do not respond to this email.
Isn't that a cheerful phrase? I refer to the magical "Please do not respond to this email." Kind of makes you want to click "reply," doesn't it?
But let me stress something. As Mark said in the comments section, it is really, really wild to think that a reporter at the New York Times has the time to respond to all email about any given story. That, of course, was one of the main points of my original post on this theme (thus, the repeat of the art with this post).
However, the Bill Keller administration has made it clear that the world's most powerful newsroom is going to make some attempts to listen to its readers, critics and readers who are critics. Digital media are supposed to be interactive and the MSM are struggling to figure out precisely what that means. I can say that the folks here at the GetReligion non-Borg have, several times, heard directly from Times reporters after we have commented on their work. This is good and allows us to make corrections, as well (should that be required).
In this case, I will keep trying to get a correction on this story. I think that the late A.M. Rosenthal would approve of my motives, as I try to help the Times get its facts straight on a major story that it will be covering over and over during the upcoming Summer of Episcopal Sex (the sequel).
I keep requesting this correction, even though I am as skeptical as any of our readers when it comes to evaluating the accuracy of church membership claims. It would be fine with me if journalists, as a rule, used mild forms of sneer language for all such statistics, such as, "The Anglican Communion, which claims to have 77 million members," etc. Yes, the same would be true of claims by the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics and, oh, the Southern Baptists.
Nevertheless, the Times made a mistake in this case and it should be corrected. Let's see how the world of interactive digital journalism works in this case.
So I am about to make another call.
Wait! My telephone is ringing (I am not making this up). It's the national desk of the New York Times. We just -- sitting at our computers on each end of the telephone line -- followed the URLs and the Times is sending me a request for more information, in which I explain why I think a correction is needed.