Monday, June 12, 2006
The Correction
One challenge of reporting is that the audience most aware of, and most interested in, the coverage of an event is the least likely to be satisfied.
I've been pretty aware of that as I've undertaken a new assignment as correspondent for The Oregonian's "Talk of the Book Town" column, now airing in the Monday Living section. It bears a certain resemblance to the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" feature, in that it attempts to intersect an event in a way that provides an interesting p.o.v. while still capturing the basic who-what-when-where.
My goal has been to find that unique nugget that those absent may have missed. It could be in the interaction of two people or in the prepared remarks of a speaker. Event organizers, or book stores, or authors might not like what I chose to feature, but as long as it is factually accurate, I think I can make a decent case for editorial decisions.
But tomorrow, look for my first (unbylined) correction, in which it is revealed that I misattributed a quote to someone else. It didn't impact the narrative arc of the piece, but on the other hand, if that level of detail is untrustworthy, then why should the reader believe any of the rest of it? It's a violation of trust between the reader and the paper, a relationship already tenuous at best.
Here is the piece to which I refer.
My apologies to the good folks at Loggernaut.
I've been pretty aware of that as I've undertaken a new assignment as correspondent for The Oregonian's "Talk of the Book Town" column, now airing in the Monday Living section. It bears a certain resemblance to the New Yorker's "Talk of the Town" feature, in that it attempts to intersect an event in a way that provides an interesting p.o.v. while still capturing the basic who-what-when-where.
My goal has been to find that unique nugget that those absent may have missed. It could be in the interaction of two people or in the prepared remarks of a speaker. Event organizers, or book stores, or authors might not like what I chose to feature, but as long as it is factually accurate, I think I can make a decent case for editorial decisions.
But tomorrow, look for my first (unbylined) correction, in which it is revealed that I misattributed a quote to someone else. It didn't impact the narrative arc of the piece, but on the other hand, if that level of detail is untrustworthy, then why should the reader believe any of the rest of it? It's a violation of trust between the reader and the paper, a relationship already tenuous at best.
Here is the piece to which I refer.
My apologies to the good folks at Loggernaut.
