Newspapers must be accurate. We're criticized for all kinds of sins -- unfairness, bias, negativity -- that are mostly in the eye of the beholder. But there is no disputing whether a newspaper gets the facts right.

And if a paper makes mistakes on a regular basis, that undermines the trust and credibility that is at the core of the newspaper-reader relationship. Accuracy is "the foundation upon which everything else builds: context, interpretation, debate, and all of public communication," write press critics Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach in their book, "The Elements of Journalism." "If the foundation is flawed, everything else is flawed."

So, is The News & Observer accurate? That's ultimately for you to decide by judging the paper's performance over time. But you might be interested to know that The N&O does try to gauge its accuracy by asking the people that it covers.

Here's how that works: We choose an article from every issue and send a mailing, signed by Executive Editor Melanie Sill and myself, asking a named source in the article about its accuracy: Were the headline, photos and graphics accurate? Were you quoted accurately? Was the story complete? Fair? There's also space for additional comment.

Responses are channeled back though editors to news staffers, and if there is a problem an editor goes over it with the employee.

You may be surprised that the overwhelming majority of responses are positive. I've gone over the last year's worth of surveys, and 142 of the 171 that were returned to us graded the story accurate on every measure. That's an 83 percent satisfaction rating.

It's not good news, though, that nearly one in five found the coverage lacking in some way. Most of the problems had to do with headlines. Sometimes the headline was wrong; more often it did not convey the meaning that the source would like to see.

Another frequent complaint was that the article didn't present enough of the source's side of the story. "I believe the choice of 'commenters' was not a balanced set of informed persons," William Roper wrote, in reference to a story about the UNC Health Care System, which he heads. Progress Energy spokesman Rick Kimble wrote: "I do, however, wish the credibility of NC WARN was questioned more by The N&O." NC WARN is a nuclear watchdog group that regularly criticizes the utility.

And sometimes, the reporting itself is criticized. "I suggest spending $50 on each reporter, get them a voice recording device," wrote Chris Frank, station manager at WCOM-FM in Carrboro. "I've been interviewed by several of your reporters. They write down about every third word and must just make up the rest from memory."

But there are more positive comments than negative. "You did an excellent job portraying and communicating the proper facts and issues," wrote Superior Court Judge Wade Barber about coverage of a trial over which he presided. "I appreciate your successful efforts to inform the public of the facts and issues."

"Menconi's brilliant -- he deserves a raise!" wrote Chris Phillips of Backstreet Magazine (no relation, best I can tell, to rock critic David Menconi).

Sill, the executive editor, introduced the accuracy surveys in 2003, about the time of the Jayson Blair scandal at The New York Times, when that reporter was found to be making up information in stories. "In the post-Blair world, this was one of the things I thought we could start as an additional way to get feedback on our coverage," she said. Some sources in stories, she said, would contact the paper about problems. "Others may not, but if we ask them, that might happen."

Next page >

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.