THAT MUCH, HUH?

[Scott R.]Maier, an associate professor at the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication, describes in a forthcoming research paper his findings that fewer than 2 percent of factually flawed articles are corrected at dailies. [emphasis added]

This seems to follow on a paper Maier wrote in 2005--Accuracy Matters: A Cross-Market Assessment of Newspaper Error and Credibility (PDF):

A survey of 4,800 news sources cited in fourteen newspapers provides a cross-market assessment of newspaper accuracy and the effect of errors on newspaper credibility. Sources found errors in 61% of local news and feature stories, an inaccuracy rate among the highest reported in nearly seventy years of accuracy research. Newspaper credibility, as perceived by news sources, significantly declined in relation to frequency and severity of errors. Inaccuracy negatively affected source willingness to cooperate with the press. Subjective errors were considered most egregious, suggesting that how a story is conveyed is at least as important as getting the facts straight.

Actually, isn't the problem that journalists consider how a story is conveyed is more important than getting the facts straight?

[Hat tip: Hot Air Headlines]

Technorati Tag: Journalism and Media Bias.