Journalists hate to be wrong. Even more, we hate to admit we're wrong. That's why it's so painful for newspapers to issue corrections to the inevitable errors that occur when you publish the equivalent of a small book each day, then another the next day.

Mistakes damage not only the stories in which they occur. They undermine reader confidence in the work of the paper.

"When I see blatant errors of fact," a reader recently wrote me, "My first reaction is: So what else is wrong in the story, the paper, anything written by this journalist?"

So we don't own up to mistakes lightly. But if anything is more important to a paper than accuracy, it's honesty, because that's the glue of trust between reader and newspaper. Good newspapers are forthcoming about their mistakes and quick to correct them.

The News & Observer in 2005 published 663 corrections, up from 617 the year before. That puts the paper above the median (522) of eight similar-sized newspapers I surveyed, ranging from 409 at The San Antonio Express-News to 779 at The Orlando Sentinel.

I think it's important that readers receive an accounting of our errors, although I'm not sure the numbers mean much. A paper with a low correction count probably is not as aggressive in its news coverage nor as honest with readers as a better paper with a high count. The Washington Post last year published 1,322 corrections, The New York Times about 3,700, according to editors at each. Those two papers, of course, serve larger markets and publish more stories annually than The N&O.

Why was The N&O correction rate up last year? John Drescher, managing editor, says he doesn't know: "I can say that we have been pretty conscientious in telling folks, when you make an error, let's run a correction -- that the worst thing is to not correct an error."

I looked over a recent month's worth of corrections, 42 in all. What stood out is how many were not errors by N&O reporters. Some were from syndicated stories picked up in The N&O. Many were in photo captions, based on bad information submitted by photographers. A number were headlines that incorrectly described stories.

"We have had trends lately with problems with picture captions and problems with headlines," Drescher acknowledged.

He said editors are trying to root out those problems by focusing on headline- and caption-writing. And he pointed out ongoing practices to minimize errors, including occasional accuracy workshops and a requirement that reporters "pencil check" every fact in every story against their source materials. Not many papers require that.

From readers' perspectives, two questions about corrections crop up most frequently:

1) Why do you not print corrections on the pages where the error occurred? Reader Jim Kimbrough noted that a recent photo error published on the front page was corrected on page 2A. "When you goof, you need to 'fess up so that the clarification/correction is seen by as many people as the original article."

With rare exceptions, all news, sports and features corrections are posted in the left-hand column on Page 2A. N&O readers have been trained to look to that page for corrections, Drescher said, and they're more likely to be seen there than if corrections were scattered around the paper.

He noted also that "occasionally, when the correction is to an error in a front-page story and it changes the substance of the story, we'll put the correction on the front page in approximately the same space."

I agree with the reasoning for anchoring corrections on page 2A. Regarding front-page errors, I can think of only three such corrections in the last nine months. There have been a lot more front-page errors. Since page one is the paper's marquee space, I think an argument that all substantial errors made on the page should be corrected there (smaller errors, such as misspellings or incorrect names, still could be corrected on 2A). My guess: You'd see fewer mistakes on page one.

2) The other frequent complaint is about completeness of corrections. The N&O's policy is that the reader should be able to understand the correction without having to read the original story. But too often that doesn't happen, because editors are loath to repeat the original mistake. A correction May 16 said "The display photo on the front of the Sports section Sunday showed Scott Gomez of the New Jersey Devils scoring his second goal of the first period in the Devils' 5-1 victory over the Carolina Hurricanes on Saturday. The caption incorrectly stated which of Gomez's goals was shown."

Why not: "The caption incorrectly stated that it was Gomez's first goal"? I think the readers would be better served by fuller disclosure.

Finally, it wouldn't hurt for the paper to say "I'm sorry" more often. When The N&O reported wrongly in January that the West Virginia coal miners had been rescued, Executive Editor Melanie Sill wrote a front-page explanation that said "we're sorry for that." I received lots of e-mails from readers grateful for the apology, which was rare for The N&O.

Drescher says he thinks an apology is implicit when a correction is made. My thought: the paper could display that touch of humility more often, especially when individuals are harmed by an error, without sacrificing its credibility.