We're told the difference between fake news and genuine newspapers is that they check their facts, thats that why we should pay for news but it doesn't seem that they do check their facts.
In a Times Ireland article (behind a paywall) Dublin city ‘Scrooges’ scrap lights ceremony Ellen Coyne, Senior Ireland reporter November 22 2018
"Darryl O’Callaghan, a Labour councillor"
I tweeted this out and emailed their feedback/corrections email address the article was corrected later.
genuine newspapers factcheck we're told, thats difference, The Times says "Darryl O’Callaghan, a Labour councillor" https://t.co/6Bj14OBEf4 he neither a member of the Labour Party nor a councillor https://t.co/UhNCTWZjEV
— steve white (@lostexpectation) November 22, 2018
The Editor of the Times Ireland Richard Oakley responded, and I asked him was the article fact-checked?
Most things are checked. Some things are missed. If you search for this chap a Labour page comes up when he was a candidate. We should have spotted it but didn't. As I said we are correcting it.
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) November 22, 2018
"Most" things are checked but not all...
I can understand one person making a mistake which is why you have a second person check, apparently they have 5 people involved in the process but it seems nobody double checks the facts.
We have the reporter, then the news desk, then me, then a sub and then a revise sub. Sometimes despite all this mistakes sneak through. Not a lot, but some.
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) November 22, 2018
I asked do the subs ring people and asked did they have their factchecking process written down somewhere so the public or even their subscribers, as I am, could read it. He said no.
Subs would ring reporters to check things but not the subjects of stories - that is the reporter's gig. In general reporters get things right. And subs are very good at spotting when they don't.
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) November 23, 2018
"Spotting" seems very loose, its seems like they are 'winging it' rather then having a a firm process in place to prevent mistakes.
Sometimes they are missed. In most cases they are checked but sometimes we still make a mistake in checking them. I don't know exactly what happened in this case as it is not worth looking into. It is a minor error. It has been corrected and we tend not to make these mistakes.
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) November 22, 2018
The editor of the Times Ireland keeps dismissing this as a minor mistake, all facts are worth checking. They got a quote from him, how did they get the quote and not check his position in the Labour Party with him?
The editor mentions the speed if the process, if you don't have the time to check something, don't run it, this article hardly needed to be published immediately.Newspaper production happens at a certain speed. There are codes in noted copy used to say something is checked. But mistakes occur from time to time. Subs usually talk to reporters if changing anything substantial.
— Richie Oakley #andacyclist (@roakleyIRL) November 23, 2018
There is a lot information on the internet about sub-editing and rewriting articles but not so much on the process of fact-checking within sub-editing.
So genuine newspapers check their facts, except when they don't!
Accuracy checklists
CUNY Fact Checking, Verification and accuracy checklists
Detroit Free Press accuracy checklists
Proofreaders' Marks for Electronic Text
Research
From Richard Oakley's reference to "codes in noted copy" I searched for copy/sub editing marks and from the above links I learned that the one mark related to factchecking is called CQ (Cadit quaestio) "the question (quaestio) falls (cadit)", i.e. there no doubt its correct, and that sub-editors generally accept this. I don't know if there are further subsidiary notes added to that, eg checked org website, spoke to person? [which they apparently did and got a quote but somehow the article stated they were in a party they had just left and they were Councillor when they had been only a local area rep].
Is what lacking here a triple check of calling the party? ie don't presume, factcheck.
Surely you need a second pairs of eyes, a second brain on something to be really certain.
