Readers Ill-served by Inconsistent Facts
Posted on Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Do you check your own content for factual consistency?
By
William Dunkerley
It's common practice for editors to
fact-check an article's content with authoritative external sources. But
what about checking for consistency in the facts that you report within
your own pages? Are you doing that?
What brought this issue to my
attention was a recent Washington Post news story. It told of a
Russian journalist who was on the receiving end of a heated tirade from
his country's top investigative official. The incident followed a story
that the journalist did that criticized the official's agency. Initially
the journalist felt that his life had been threatened. But then the
official apologized for his ill-tempered outburst and assured the
journalist of his safety. The publication's editor was quoted saying
"reconciliation has taken place." The article seemed to indicate that
the matter had been settled.
But then three days later, the Post
cited the same incident in an editorial that urged the U.S. Congress to
"punish the Russian abusers." This was an example, claimed the
editorial, of the Kremlin "cracking down on Russians seeking democratic
reform or fighting corruption."
What's a Reader to
Believe?
This all left readers to wonder which was the case:
Was it a story of a hot-headed Russian bureaucrat's meltdown that had
been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties involved? Or was this
an incident indicative of a top-down effort to thwart democratic reform
and preserve corruption? Did it really require punitive action from the
U.S. Congress? The news story claimed one set of facts, the editorial,
the other.
The Post's own facts seemed to be at odds with
themselves. Did the Post's news staff miss an overarching angle
of unresolved high-level government media abuse? Or did the editorial
writers miss the fact that the incident had been settled satisfactorily?
What were readers to conclude?
I wrote to the Post's
editors about the disparity. They didn't reply. I also wrote to the
paper's ombudsman in connection with this article. I invited comment on
whether he believed that a reader disservice is created by inconsistent
content that is presented in a publication, citing the Russian incident
as an example. He didn't answer, either.
Consistency
Editors
generally focus on consistency. We use style manuals to provide
uniformity in our content. We use layout grids for organizing text and
images. We follow grammatical guidelines, too. In a sense, consistency
is an underlying fabric of a publication. It helps readers to comprehend
content. Inconsistency can result in confusion.
Of course, there
are times when presenting inconsistency is intentional. One example from
the archives of Editors Only dealt with the question of whether
language should evolve over time or be preserved in the status quo.
There are two sides to the issue. We ran side-by-side articles in a
pro-con format. One article was written by a leader of an organization
dedicated to language preservation. It advocated, for instance, keeping
new and trendy words out of the vocabulary. The other article was by the
chief editor at Webster's, who described how the dictionary
evolves based on usage, with new words being incorporated into it all
the time. The pairing made for an interesting contrast and gave readers
something to think about.
Opinion roundups are another genre
where consistency is not the objective. Indeed, lively disagreement
makes for interesting reading!
But in these examples of
disagreeing content, we're talking about presentational formats that
make clear to the reader that there are some things in dispute, whether
they be facts or opinions.
The Post's Downfall
Perhaps
that's the trap the Washington Post fell into. They didn't
present their disparate "facts" as a "you decide" proposition. First the
story was one way, then it was another. And there was no commentary to
explain the change.
The news story was well sourced and included
relevant quotes. The editorial presented allegations as if they were
facts, and provided no substantiation.
Elsewhere in this issue,
Peter Jacobi writes, "[The facts] are your gift to those you mean to
serve." Perhaps the Post was serving a master other than its readers.
Their coverage of the story in question was clearly no gift to the
readers.
Your Gift to Readers
The example offered
by the Post with its Russian story is one of what not to do.
Consistency in the representation of facts is as much a service to
readers as are matters of style, design and grammar. It is important to
differentiate between facts, opinions, and allegations. And when facts
are in dispute, readers will be well served if you make that clear at
the outset. If you apply these precepts consistently, you will be giving
your readers an unquestionable gift.
William Dunkerley is
editor of Editors Only.
Add
your comment.