I personally feel as a consumer, I have a right to the correct information. I would feel better about the news if papers would offer corrections more readily; that way, I know the information I am getting is accurate. I feel that accuracy matters more than reputation. A paper that makes corrections to a host of inaccurate statements is better than a paper that hides a few errors in my book. Papers have a responsibility to their readers: providing the news in the most accurate form.

It's better to get the truth out there, even if it is from a correction. In the Setonian newspaper meeting tonight, we covered many of these same issues. I am proud to say that the Setonian has a commitment to excellence in these areas. Bias aside, the Setonian is writing a correction to one of its articles. This demonstrates to the audience that it cares about informing and reporting the truth.

I feel one of the major reasons people think the newspapers are untrustworthy is this fear of correcting errors.

A cause of this problem is the lack of open communication between reporter and editor and the reporter's fear of penalization for errors. When editors are more authoritarian than authoritative, reporters don't want to be honest for fear of penalization. I feel that editors should focus more on the positive side of things. For example, editors should be more apt to reward and reinforce practices such as correcting errors as soon as they are caught and offering more clarifications.

This will give way to a more open relationship of communication between the two functions. When this communication is present, there are less errors and the readers get a better article. I like the suggestion to let readers communicate errors. This gets the readers involved and lets them know that their voice matters. It also builds a relationship with the paper and lightens the error-catching load.