The Sidebar: corrections

Showing posts with label corrections. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

After I requested a published correction for a factual error, the Delaware News Journal disappeared the error - I've asked parent company Gannett for a ruling

For online news outlets that want to cover up reportorial errors, the digital age is a wish granted.

A reporter gets something wrong? Just disappear it.

How bad can it get? Per a 2019 story in the journalism watchdog Press Gazette, my efforts uncovered that the vast majority of UK news outlets can disappear entire stories without recourse.

Moving right along, what you're reading is tied to my January 26, 2022 blog item, My dad's name has been scrubbed from a Delaware solar farm after I informed energy companies of his dark history.

At the time, I pitched the story to a bunch of Delaware news outlets including the News Journal, the leading daily in Wilmington, but I didn't get any takers.

A few days ago my Google News alert sent me a March 4, 2022 Journal News story by reporter Ben Mace because it included these words:

Straightforward factual error, right? Per my blog, my dad's name had been dropped from the solar farm.

So on March 6, I emailed a polite request for a published correction to this department and copied Mr. Mace:

The News Journal is owned by Gannett, so in my request I pointed out that any correction should adhere to Gannett's editorial guidelines which in this case should include an explanation that the name of the solar project was changed and on what date - also perhaps why it was changed.

I never received a reply, but this morning I revisited the paywalled article and found this:

And this scrub job:

You may not be surprised to learn that the article, updated the day after I sent my request, includes no note informing readers that the article's been corrected and why.

In my opinion, that's sleazy journalism and may violate Gannett newsroom guidelines (see below), so this morning I asked a Gannett editorial representative for a ruling.

I'll update this item with the results.

Correcting errors

When errors occur, the newspaper has an ethical obligation to correct the record and minimize harm.

Errors should be corrected promptly. But first, a determination must be made that the fact indeed was in error and that the correction itself is fully accurate.
Errors should be corrected with sufficient prominence that readers who saw the original error are likely to see the correction. This is a matter of the editor’s judgment.
Although it is wise to avoid repeating the error in the correction, the correction should have sufficient context that readers will understand exactly what is being corrected.
Errors of nuance, context or tone may require clarifications, editor’s notes, editor’s columns or letters to the editor.
When the newspaper disagrees with a news subject about whether a story contained an error, editors should consider offering the aggrieved party an opportunity to express his or her view in a letter to the editor.
Corrections should be reviewed before publication by a senior editor who was not directly involved in the error. The editor should determine if special handling or outside counsel are required.
Errors should be corrected whether or not they are called to the attention of the newspaper by someone outside the newsroom.
Factual errors should be corrected in most cases even if the subject of the error does not want it to be corrected. The rationale for this is rooted in the Truth Principle. It is the newspaper’s duty to provide accurate information to readers. An exception may be made – at the behest of the subject – when the correction of a relatively minor mistake would result in public ridicule or greater harm than the original error.
Newsroom staffers should be receptive to complaints about inaccuracies and follow up on them.
Newsroom staffers have a responsibility to alert the appropriate editor if they become aware of a possible error in the newspaper.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Trouble in paradise: Ohio fireman gets lifesaving award for near-drowning rescue of a Korean tourist in Hawaii. But he performed an unapproved, discredited treatment on the victim - abdominal thrusts - and her condition is uncertain.

Patty Dukes, Chief of Emergency Medical Services for the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, with President Obama, circa 2012? (source)

On July 8, WKRC-TV News aired Norwood Firefighter Rescues Woman While on Honeymoon by reporter Dan Spehler. (Norwood's an enclave of greater Cincinnati.)

A Norwood firefighter is called a hero after trying to save someone's life on his honeymoon. He and his wife were in Hawaii when they came across a woman who was face down in the water.

...(Philip) Reed and his wife were honeymooning on the island of Oahu near the Hanauma Bay, just east of Honolulu. They swam out toward the reef to go snorkeling. "I said hey its starting to get a little rough I think we should head back and about that time we heard some woman screaming. As we get closer we saw her pointing to the water. There was a woman face down in the water."

Reed and his wife pulled her onto the reef.

So far so good. But then this...

"I kept giving her abdominal thrusts to get water out of her. We gave her more rescue breaths."

As a firefighter and paramedic, Phil knows how to deal with an emergency. but this was different. "I have had no water rescue training."

...and this.

(Today) he got a certificate and a letter from (Honolulu's) chief of EMS...I'm just glad we were able to do something and hopefully we gave her the best chance she had."

As for what happened to the woman...Phil was told she was on life support when they left the island. But he doesn't even (know) if she survived.

From the June 3, 2011 Washington Post:

The Heimlich maneuver (abdominal thrusts) became famous as a way for people to dislodge a foreign object from a choking person’s airway. But it’s been utterly discredited as a way of rescuing a person who is drowning, and can actually do serious harm to someone who has just been pulled from the water, numerous experts say.

...The list of experts who reject the Heimlich maneuver is lengthy: The American Red Cross; the United States Lifesaving Association; the American Heart Association; the Institute of Medicine; the International Life Saving Federation and many experienced doctors and academics have strongly inveighed against doing “abdominal thrusts” for drowning victims.

...In Tampa, which has one of the highest drowning rates in the country, Dr. James Orlowski (at University Community Hospital) said he has documented nearly 40 cases where rescuers performing the Heimlich maneuver have caused complications for the victim.

Questions:

Why did the Norwood fireman perform an unapproved, discredited treatment on the drowning woman? Why was he given an award for doing so?

Why did the fireman accept an EMS award and participate in a news report without even knowing if the woman was still alive?

And why did WKRC report the story without knowing whether or not the woman survived?

According to two April 18 media reports, she didn't.

From the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the islands' biggest daily:

From the website of the local CBS/NBC affiliate, Hawaii News Now:

How do I know this is the same case reported by WKRC?

First, it's not in the text version of the Cincinnati news report, but in the video, Dan Spehler says the event happened "a couple of months ago."

Based on that information, in minutes I located the two Honolulu news stories via Google.

Apparently that idea never occurred to anyone at the Norwood Fire Department or WKRC, who were busy celebrating the award.

Here it is, a certificate awarded by Honolulu City and County EMS Chief Patricia "Patty" Dukes:

Note the Honolulu EMS motto.

Next, here's an e-mail I received in response to an inquiry I sent to City and County of Honolulu. Per my red highlighting, this is when the story took an unexpected turn.

Subject: RE: media inquiry

From: Louise Kim McCoy

Date: 7/11/2011 6:21 PM
To: Peter M. Heimlich

Peter: Here are the responses to your questions.

1) Does the City and County of Honolulu EMS recommend that abdominal thrusts be performed on near-drowning victims? No, it is not part of our protocol

2) Would you please provide me with a copy of the letter and certificate Chief Dukes sent to Mr. Reed? E-mail or fax would be best. The City and County of Honolulu recognized Mr. Reed for responding to an emergency at Hanauma Bay and providing rescue breathing prior to the arrival of lifeguards. It was never reported to us that Mr. Reed had performed abdominal thrusts at the scene.

3) Would you please provide me with the date of the near-drowning, the victim's name, and the victim's present condition? On April 18, 2011, a woman was transported from Hanauma Bay to Straub Hospital in critical condition. The media reports that stated she died at the hospital soon after arrival were incorrect. We do not have information on her current condition.

Louise Kim McCoy
Press Secretary
City and County of Honolulu

I asked Ms. McCoy who provided her with this information. She answered that it came from the Emergency Services Department.

To recap, based on the above information:

On April 18 at Hanauma Bay, the Norwood fireman/paramedic and his wife happened upon a woman who was drowning. They pulled her onto a reef and, along with rescue breaths, he repeatedly applied abdominal thrusts. The woman, a 35 year-old tourist from Korea, was transported to Straub Hospital in critical condition. Later that day, two area news outlets incorrectly reported that she died.

About two months later, Honolulu EMS chief Patty Dukes sent the award to the fireman, someone told WKRC about it and Dan Spehler reported the story, characterizing the fireman as a hero. Though they all knew she had been in critical condition at the time of the accident, apparently none of these parties made any effort to verify the patient's current condition.

It's unclear what Dukes knew and when. Was she aware of the patient's condition when she presented the award? Dave Platte, News Director at Hawaii News Now, says the information his station reported originated from Honolulu EMS.

Before my inquiry to Ms. McCoy, if Honolulu EMS knew that the patient was alive, it's dead certain they made no effort to notify the media. If they had, the two news stories would have been updated. (More about that below.)

O Ka Mea Ma'i Ka Mua. The patient is our priority. Sounds nice anyway.

I wanted to know what happened to the Korean woman, so I started making calls. Eventually I located a source who was close to the situation and who was willing to talk.

The source informed me that the woman had remained in a coma for an entire month at Straub Hospital.

Then, at considerable personal expense - $100,000 according to my source - the patient's husband arranged to have his wife airlifted to Seoul to be cared for at Yonsei University Health System.

Yonsei University Health System (YUHS) was founded in 1885 as the first modern medical institution in Korea by the American medical missionary, Dr. Horace N. Allen...As the hospital expanded over the years to include various colleges and research centers, the Yonsei University Health System was born. YUHS has been the leader of medicine and is respected as the protector of Korean health. Furthermore, the roots of Christianity, modern medical education and medical care in Korea can all be linked to YUHS.

What's her present condition?

On Monday, I spoke with Jiman Kim, Vice Consul at the Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Honolulu.

I told him that I was writing about the case and he informed me that he has remained in contact with the patient's husband since the accident.

He explained that due to privacy issues, he could not share or confirm any of the details I obtained from my source.

However, he said he didn't have a problem forwarding information to the patient's husband.

###

Finally, last week I submitted corrections requests to the two Hawaiian news outlets that misreported the story.

Ed Lynch, Managing Editor at the Star-Advertiser, arranged a rewrite that acknowledged the error and replaced the incorrect story at the same link:

Honolulu News Now News Director Mark Platte chose the Orwellian route and simply disappeared the mistake.

Date: 7/30/2011 12:10 AM

From: Mark Platte
To: Peter M. Heimlich

Subject: RE: corrections request re: Hanauma Bay near-drowning

Mr. Heimlich,

When we realized the Korean visitor had not died, as EMS officials told us, we removed our story from our Web site.

Thanks for letting us know the sequence of events for a future story. We will call you if we need more information.

Aloha, Mark

In a follow-up, I asked Mr. Platte, a former newspaper editor:

Based on your e-mail, my understanding is that Hawaii News Now policy is that when your station is informed that a story posted on your website includes false or incorrect information, the original story is deleted.

If my understanding is incorrect, please explain before Tuesday, August 2. Also, if you station has a corrections policy, please provide me with a copy before that date.

I haven't received a reply, but maybe that disappeared, too.

Mark Platte

Friday, July 15, 2011

Staten Island first aid columnist goofs, but the paper refuses to publish a correction; six months later, she sneaks in the correct information

There's a persistent myth in the world of first aid that slapping a choking victim on the back is dangerous. The rationale is that doing so supposedly drives food or another obstruction deeper into the airway.

A year after he introduced "the Heimlich maneuver" in 1974, my father began making this claim. He didn't have any evidence, but for the next 30 years, he kept saying it and the media kept reporting it.

Here's the first published example of which I'm aware, a feature by Irene Wright, who, according to Amazon.com, "was a reporter for 25 years with The Cincinnati Enquirer and the newspaper's first female bureau chief."

The efforts to circulate and codify this baloney by my father and a few cronies - one of whom was the US Surgeon General - were successful, at least for a couple of decades.

A few years ago, syndicated columnist Lenore Skenazy nicely summed up the history in a few paragraphs:

I grew up with the belief that back slaps were verboten - the First Aid equivalent of hitting a drowning man on the head with a cement life preserver. Nope, said American Red Cross spokeswoman Pamela King: Back slaps were always part of the protocol - in Europe.

Choke me with a foie gras sandwich. They were? Then how'd they get such a bad rap over here?

Their infamy seems to have been promoted by the guy whose name was not back slap. The guy whose name was (and still is - he's 87) Heimlich.

Back blows are "death blows," Heimlich declared as he lobbied for his own maneuver's acceptance 30 years ago. In 1985, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop endorsed this view, dubbing back slaps "hazardous." After that, only the Heimlich maneuver was considered kosher.

What most people don't realize, said Heimlich's son, Peter Heimlich, is that "Koop was an old friend of my father's and he did it as a buddy favor."

Needless to say, even after a wrong idea is righted, almost inevitably it will continue to find voice.

To wit, How much do you know about emergency first aid? by Gail Larkin, a January 31, 2011 first aid column in the Staten Island Advance that asked readers whether this question was true or false:

Her answer?

Based on my experience, the media doesn't enjoy running corrections, but when good journalists commit errors of fact, they fix 'em pronto.

Brian J. Laline

So I submitted a short corrections request to news editor Brian J. Laline in which I provided documentation from the American Red Cross and American Heart Association, both of which recommend backblows as an effective treatment for choking.

That seemed like sufficient evidence to make the point and I assumed he'd arrange for the paper to run a quick fix.

But you know the saying about what happens when you assume.

Instead of handling what should have been a simple editorial decision, Laline punted my e-mail to Ms. Larkin.

And here my troubles began.

Next came a string of defensive e-mails from Larkin filled with outdated and poorly-sourced information. That struck me as odd because she informed me that she's a paramedic. The first responders I've encountered in my work have unfailingly been sticklers for accuracy and keeping their skills up to date.

But I remained patient and polite and did my best to inform her of the facts, none of which appeared to register. In fact, Larkin seemed resistant to even wanting to understand. For example, in a February 3 e-mail she wrote:

(The) American Heart Association (AHA) continues to discourage instructors from teaching back blows.

I knew this was false so I suggested she contact the AHA. I even provided her with contact information for Tagni McCrae, the organization's Communications Manager.

A week later, then again a week after that, I sent polite follow-up e-mails to Larkin asking if she'd contacted the AHA. I didn't receive a reply from her. Keep in mind that a month had passed since her column appeared.

It was evident that Larkin didn't intend to follow-through, so I did:

I then forwarded this to Larkin. She remained adamant. No correction was forthcoming.

Ever seen this bumper sticker?

Maybe it applies to me for spending so much of my time on this!

But I'd come this far, so to close the loop, I e-mailed all the details to editor Brian Laline and re-submitted my corrections request.

No response. (No surprise.)

I wouldn't be chewing this over on my blog except for the fact that a few days ago my trusty Google News sent me the latest by Gail Larkin, published Monday by the Advance. It's another "how much do you know?" column entitled Summer accident quiz that includes:

Is it just me or does this seem like a weaselly move?

More importantly, it's unclear how refusing to correct an obvious error, then trying to clean up the record in a subsequent column, benefits readers.

Much more importantly, if the Advance is unwilling to publish a correction for such a minor yet unambiguous factual error like this one, how are the big goofs being handled?

Not my problem, hooray!

Finally, I don't understand what Gail Larkin means by "if you are familiar with (backblows)" in her recent column. I mean, what kind of familiarization is required to slap someone on the back?

Based on my correspondence with her, it's Ms. Larkin who needs to familiarize herself with the subjects about which she's reporting.

7/23/11 UPDATE: On July 11, while reporting this story, I e-mailed editor Brian Laline and asked if the Advance had published a correction to Larkin's error. (I couldn't find one, but I wanted to verify.) Today I received a "deleted without being read" response from him. Seems like someone's not keeping up with their editorial responsibilities...or their correspondence!