Talking Media with Todd Stone of Rapp Strategies, Inc.

Three major television networks last week did something that not so long ago would have been unthinkable – they stopped broadcasting a live news conference featuring the President two days after Election Day, when the outcome was still unclear.

The on-air commentators explained they felt compelled to correct President Trump’s allegations – so far unfounded – that the election was being stolen from him. Some media pundits applauded the move by CBS, ABC and NBC, saying that news media should interject more aggressively to blunt the dissemination of misinformation, especially on live television.

Others said the networks should have allowed viewers to see the entire speech uninterrupted – it was part of their obligation to tell the whole story. Even liberal activist Ralph Nader weighed in, saying the networks were irresponsible for cutting away and that “factual checks can come later.”

The dilemma for news organizations, of course, is whether to allow anyone, even the president, to use their platform – live, unfiltered and unchecked – to reach so many millions of Americans. Yes, you can correct the record later if there are falsehoods, but many viewers won’t see the context, hear the explanations about process or get other relevant facts.

This reminds me how newspapers and other news organizations struggle to adequately correct inaccuracies that are already published. Like a live press conference, a published or broadcast report with an error is already out in the public domain. Time is passing. Readers have moved on to other stories minutes, hours or days later.

Journalists understand there’s nothing worse for their credibility than mistakes, whether it’s an error in fact, missing context or a simple typo. And once you publish an error or something misleading, it will always leave someone out there misinformed. As one of my editors once said: “Some errors will stick to the reader no matter how hard you try to set the record straight.”

During my days as a newspaper editor, my colleagues and I understood that mistakes are going to happen and correcting them quickly is essential. Digital news outlets will correct or update the stories, usually with a notice that the story had been updated to address an error. Most print publications will address the error in the online version of the story first, then publish a correction in print. The correction is also attached to the story in the news outlet’s archive, if it has one.

Despite these efforts, complaints are inevitable and often deserved: The correction or update wasn’t displayed prominently enough. The story should have been corrected sooner (sometimes, it can take a few days to verify facts). The story should be reprinted. These complaints are understandable. After all, no matter what, there will be some who only saw the error and not the correction.

And that brings us back to the president’s news conference. We know that once an inaccuracy is out there, it’s going to stick with some viewers. People will miss the updates, the context, the corrections.

Of course, there’s also nothing worse for a news organization than failing to acknowledge and correct mistakes or enabling misinformation without proper checks, context and scrutiny. When you’re live, there’s no perfect play. You make the calculation that the news value is greater than the risk of misinformation. It’s interesting that some networks didn’t break away from the president’s news conference, though all of them offered robust fact-checking afterward.

There are some important takeaways to consider: First, there will be times when news organizations will have to report something, even if they believe what is being reported isn’t factual or beyond reasonable opinion. Second, journalists have a fundamental obligation to fact check and provide full context about an issue, especially if they intend to demonstrate that a person is lying. And finally, news outlets must resolve to recognize their mistakes and correct them as soon as possible.

For those organizations who deal with reporters, remember that you can play an important role in making sure a news story is accurate. Consider how you can help reporters. Offer them background material in advance, such as fact sheets, research or access to an expert on the subject. Make yourself a credible resource for reliable facts and context.

After all, if the story is right the first time, you won’t have to worry about the errors that can stick later.

Todd Stone is the senior director at Rapp Strategies and leads the firm’s media relations work. He has worked in editing positions at five of the 30 largest daily newspapers in the U.S. He can be reached at toddstone@rappstrategies.com.