Bloggers can be a cranky, argumentative bunch. But if there's one thing they will gather around the campfire to enjoy together, it's trashing the mainstream media.

Regret The Error takes on the press, too -- with a difference.

Rather than ranting about shoddy reporting methods or alleged media bias to advance a political agenda, Craig Silverman started his blog in October 2004 to advance the practice of journalism. Silverman compiles published corrections and offers insights into how reporters and editors can improve their accuracy.

He also has fun with it. As he puts it, the "short, pithy, and often hilarious nature" of corrections makes them perfect for a blog. One of his all-time favorites comes from The Dallas Morning News:

"An Oct. 19 article on songwriter John Bucchino incorrectly stated that he doesn't read. The sentence should have said he doesn't read music."

We interviewed Craig about his motivations, the funniest -- and scariest -- newspaper corrections he's come across, his methodology for gathering information, and other stuff. (The full interview is after the jump.)


Q: What motivated you to start Regret The Error?

A: The idea first popped into my head in early 2004. I wrote up a short overview of the concept, sent it around to some writer/journalist friends and promptly did nothing for a good six or seven months. At the time I was, and still am, a freelance writer working mostly for magazines and also doing corporate writing/communications work. (I've been full-time freelance since late summer 2002, when I left a job in the tech industry and rededicated myself to writing after three years on the other side.) One Sunday night in September I was lying on the couch and suddenly decided to set up Regret the Error.

The initial idea came to me when I found myself reading more and more blogs and thinking about how I could start one that would be a useful addition. I wasn't interested in sharing what I ate for breakfast that day, nor did I think anyone would care.

I've long been an avid reader of corrections and thought that their short, pithy, and often hilarious nature made them perfect for a blog. I also thought my background working in communications for companies and as a journalist made me a good fit to look at the issue of corrections and media accuracy from a balanced perspective. (I once had to ask the Wall Street Journal to print a correction after they reported that a company I worked for had gone out of business. I've also had to print corrections for articles I've written.)

The idea was to raise the issue, highlight the best/worst corrections, start a dialogue about how the media can be more accurate, and investigate whether the correction actually works.

I've been dedicated to it because it caught on right away and I love the topic. The truth is that I never expected it to become so popular or establish itself so quickly. Some days it's very difficult to get my paying work done and also give the site the attention it requires. But I'm certainly not complaining. Regret has already given back more than I've put in.

Q: Many bloggers criticize inaccuracies or alleged inaccuracies in the media. Do you think there is a certain level of "piling on" in this regard -- and if so, is this good or bad?

A: There is a higher level of scrutiny on the press today than ever before and bloggers are a big part of that. Is there mean-spirited "piling on"? Lord yes. It's constant. Blogging was partly pushed into the mainstream by partisan politics. People are naturally drawn to blogs that reinforce their world view, just as they are when it comes to other media. Blogs have become a powerful weapon in ideological warfare because they are instant, linkable, opinionated, and viral.

Blogging has put the power of publishing at anyone's fingertips, and the Internet offers a (potential) global audience. People with very specific interests and expertise can now flaunt their wares and knowledge to their community while also making their thoughts available to the world-at-large.

The result is that you can't get away with things like you used to. Somebody always knows more, or is willing to take a few minutes on Google to investigate. I think this is a good thing.

There's no question that a lot of bloggers criticize inaccuracies as a means to question the mainstream press as a whole. Errors are therefore more corrosive to the media than ever before. I like the idea that the press is being pushed to a higher standard, but I'm not a fan of the nastiness that often accompanies criticism.

Q: How is Regret The Error different from some of the other sites that consider themselves media watchdogs?

A: One of the biggest differences is that the site is not affiliated with any political movement, party or candidate. There's no driving ideology behind Regret, either. I'm not so foolhardy as to say I don't have personal biases, but the only axe I have to grind is that I think corrections could serve the press and public better, and that so many of the errors being made could be prevented.

While I often criticize egregious errors and publicize instances of plagiarism, my goal is not to tear down the press. I work in the press and my motivation is to make it better. I think that's a big difference between Regret and a lot of other sites. When I discover an instance of plagiarism it honestly upsets me. I don't get off on it.

I'm trying to send a message that, in these times when scrutiny is constant, when shoddy reporting is used for propaganda, when there are co-called "watchdog" groups constantly monitoring and hoping for any inaccuracy or sign of bias, the press has to rise up and meet a higher standard of accuracy. It can be a competitive advantage. It will draw readers and viewers. It will prevent the nasty "piling on." It just makes sense.

The debate about the future of newspapers and network news is tied up in this. I think that the so-called mainstream media should adopt accuracy as one of its core competencies, as something it can deliver better than any other kind of news source. That means more than just saying you strive to be accurate; it's about adopting policies, practices and training that can demonstrably raise the bar. Walk the talk. Stop giving partisan critics ammunition.

Q: What's the deal with Alessandra Stanley?

A: This is an instance where I sometimes wonder if I'm piling on. I don't like the personal nature of the attacks on her, but she continues to make inexcusable errors. I call them inexcusable not because they are particularly egregious in the sense of their consequences. They are inexcusable because she is getting very simple things wrong on a consistent basis.

There's a side element to this: the New York Times -- the paper that created the modern correction format in the early 1970s -- does not as a rule indicate the source of an error in a correction. Some other papers will note that it was a reporter's error, or an editing error. It's possible that some of her errors were inserted by an editor, but we don't know because the paper doesn't specify.

At this point the errors in her work have become a distraction and I would hope that this is something that her editors are working with her to change. You can't just dismiss the criticism as blog chatter. Gawker and Reference Tone have proven that there's an issue here.

I would prefer to see someone receive training and extra attention before getting canned for making errors, but there is a point where you have to draw the line. Really, is it so hard to re-check all the names and titles in a piece before putting it in the paper? I understand the pressure on newspaper reporters to file quickly, but it's better to get it right than get it fast.

Q: What is the funniest error you've come across?

A: One of my favorites is a seemingly simple error -- the paper left out a word. But when you read the correction you see how important that one word was, and why the error was so embarrassing for the person and paper. Here's the correction, from the Dallas Morning News of October 2004:

"An Oct. 19 article on songwriter John Bucchino incorrectly stated that he doesn't read. The sentence should have said he doesn't read music."

The same paper did a similar thing in 2005:

"Norma Adams-Wade's June 15 column incorrectly called Mary Ann Thompson-Frenk a socialist. She is a socialite."

Those two just kill me.

Q: What is the scariest -- the one that worries you the most about the profession?

A: The Fox News pundit who read out an address on the air saying it was the home of a terrorist. In reality, it was the home of a family who then had strangers drive by and yell obscenities at them in addition to having their home vandalized. The local police even had to station a patrol car across the street to help keep them safe.

Fox and the pundit only apologized after the LA Times picked up the story. And, as far as I know, no apology was ever put on air. The error was horrible, its consequences were astounding, and the restitution offered by the offending media outlet was piss poor.

In the end, you know the family and all of their friends will never look at the press the same again, and that's something every journalist should keep in mind. Every error that relates to a person stays with them for a long time. Spell their name wrong, say they have a son instead of a daughter, call them a socialist or illiterate -- they remember. Talk about one-to-one marketing.

Q: What kind of reaction have you gotten from journalists?

A: The initial reaction was that journalists started sending in corrections from their competitors, which was funny and not entirely unexpected. I've never had a negative response from a journalist. I think it shows that, by and large, people in the industry do care about accuracy. But there's a disconnect between the widely-held ethics in the industry and the actual practices in the newsroom.

Q: Which of your posts has generated the most interest? The most controversy?

A: The most popular post by far was my round-up of the year in media errors and correction for 2005. My traffic went through the roof and it was picked up all over the place. Everybody likes to highlight mistakes as long as they aren't their own. And I'll of course include myself in that group.

I don't know if anything has been controversial. I did get a lot of email about whether or not to have a comma in a particular place in the site's description. People got very passionate about that. I'm no copy editor (just look at my mistakes on the site and in this reply) so I love it when the grammar police cracks down on me. Bring on the nit picks, I say. I do it to others which means I have to be willing to take it.

Q: What's your system for collecting corrections so quickly from so many news sources?

A: It's a complicated process that involves Johnny Walker Black, Factiva, Firefox, three monkeys, a ladle, four cups of flour, and a very annoyed girlfriend. In all it takes me between one and three hours each day to do the site.

Q: What blogs do you read regularly and why?

A: A few of many:

Gawker because I'm a NY media junkie and it's still the gold standard for blogs

Fishbowl NY because it's got a different tone and angle than Gawker and Rachel is Canadian, which means she is awesome

Fark.com because it's not news, it's Fark

Romenesko because you can't work in the North American media and not read Romenesko

Antonia Zerbisias because it's the best Canadian media blog out there

The Dirt because it offers some good inside rants on the Canadian media

Wonkette because I like my politics dirty

Copyranter because it's funny

PressThink because he's prolific and hella on point

BuzzMachine ditto

Q: Has your blog helped you from a business standpoint?

A: Oh lord yes. I'm currently working on a book about media accuracy and errors and it's completely a result of the site. The idea is to write the Eats, Shoots & Leaves of accuracy. Currently the plan is publish it in Spring 2007, but it could come earlier. Aside from raising my profile in the press community, that's been the big gain.

Q: Anything else you'd like to add?

A: I'd love to speak with any PR folks out there who've had an interesting experience trying to get a correction or retraction from the press. Email me: editor@regrettheerror.com. It's for use in the book.

Oh, and: Go Habs!

Technorati tags: Journalism, Media, Regret the Error, Newspapers, Bloggers, Blogs