|
November 2004 · Volume 86 · Number 10
Correcting a Wrong WriteEvery local government official I have met has dealt with at least one memorable incident of false reporting in the mass media. Most officials have lived through multiple incidents. Please note that my reference here is to untrue "facts" that are fundamental and blatant, as opposed to mistakes in typography or in reporting minutiae. The bogus information may have been released in print, broadcast on television or radio, or posted on the Internet. The situation might have been caused by a variety of factors, including human error, incomplete reporting, poor editing, false statements by interviewees, the wrong emphasis voiced by those being interviewed, no information presented by the local government, confusing information released by the governmental agency, or speaking on a topic too soon. The list could go on and on. Managers and administrators sometimes muddle through mass communication activities on their own. We hope to learn from our mistakes and to improve our results. Some of us try to hone our skills by attending "how to" sessions or classes. The how-to literature is replete with advice on ways to spin your governmental message in a way that the public will understand and the media will correctly report. Some of us have a public information officer (PIO) on staff or engage a consultant to guide us through the treacherous world of mass communication. Our organizations use spokespersons, community newsletters, government-access cable television channels, governmental Web sites, direct mailings, telephone surveys, signboards, e-mail transmissions, and other resources. Our efforts are designed to avoid the publication of incorrect information before it has been spread, and to minimize the damage after it is out. Despite all of these efforts, media communications can still be problematic. We never know for certain if we are ready until an actual troublesome event occurs. This article focuses on two real incidents of false reporting that commanded community-wide attention. You will learn how the first false report had a persistent and negative impact, and you will also see how this bad experience motivated the staff of our city to avoid a repeat of history and to turn the second false report into a victory for the truth. The Bridge to Nowhere: An Urban Legend FiascoOur story begins on the morning of May 3, 2002, when a newspaper of high circulation in the Chicago metropolitan area arrived in Wood Dale, Illinois, around 6:30 a.m. A headline for a news story, under the byline of a local reporter, appeared in Section 1, page 3, where the local news is prominently displayed: "Wood Dale's Costs for Trail Bridge Grow." The article focused on a proposed $1.9 million bike/pedestrian bridge. The reporter had incorrectly reported that the local match on the 80 percent grant-funded project had increased by nearly $500,000 over the original engineering estimates of $116,000. He based the wrong numbers upon an alderman's misinterpretation of a staff report instead of speaking to the author. The truth is that the city's estimated contribution had risen by $150,000 on an original estimate of $400,000. The reporter was mixing bridge cost estimates with a different set of trail costs. City staff tried to set the record straight by presenting a status report on all aspects of this project at three public meetings televised on the cable television government-access channel. The purpose was to inform the council and public of the real facts. The reports contained additional information on the proposed 7.2-mile trail connecting to the bridge and how it was part of a planned 30-mile regional trail system. The newspaper never published an article on the staff reports, even though a reporter was present at the meetings and received copies. The next headline concerning the cost of this project was published on October 15, 2002, under the same reporter's byline, again on page 3: "Cost of Bridge, Path Continues to Go Up." The article was accompanied by a photograph of the nearly completed bridge. To our dismay, the reporter reiterated most of the wrong data that he had stated five months earlier, as though the staff information had never been presented. We told him that information contained in the article was false and gave him additional copies of the staff reports. No one at the city, however, pressed for a published correction. As the next few weeks passed, we found that this approach was a big mistake. City officials began to hear that the project was mockingly being referred to as the "bridge to nowhere." Project opponents used sarcasm to portray the bridge as a big waste of money. There was no reference ever made to the important safety improvement gained because the bridge would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross a busy highway from one shopping center to another. These disappointments prompted an effort by the mayor and city staff members to play catch-up. We wanted to show how the bridge would improve safety and would become a legitimate part of a local and regional trail system. Unfortunately, the "bridge to nowhere" catchphrase had become as widespread and popular as an urban legend. Statements at city council meetings, cable-TV playbacks of meetings, reports, a ribbon-cutting ceremony, and community newsletter articles could not reverse the word on the street. The "bridge to nowhere" rapidly became embedded in the public's perception of fact. It even became fodder for rhetoric during the next municipal-election season. The notion of a "bridge to nowhere" has only recently been quashed because the trail leading to and from the bridge is now under construction. This urban legend may be nearing an end, but it is a classic example of how not to handle a false report. City officials had underestimated the negative impact of false information and failed to deal with it effectively. The $10 Million Blunder, the $10 SolutionOn the morning of March 9, 2004, the same newspaper again arrived at my house around 6:30 a.m. It prominently displayed a report with photograph regarding the city and the local train depot. The top headline in Section 1 on page 3 read: "Wood Dale Takes Over Upkeep of Train Depot, Maintenance Will Cost $10 Million a Year." The byline was that of the same reporter who had written the bridge story. This time, his report stated that the city had agreed to pay the Chicago-area rail-transit agency (METRA) $10 million for the next 40 years. The story further noted that the city of Wood Dale would be spending more money to fix up and maintain the train depot, even though METRA would continue to own the structure. This information was blatantly false. This city manager was motivated to avert another "bridge to nowhere" fiasco. I arrived at city hall early with the purpose of contacting the newspaper's staff immediately. But first I read 10 e-mails and heard six telephone messages specifically on this topic. After consulting with the mayor and staff, I began communicating in writing by sending e-mails to the reporter and to three of the editors. I also e-copied all elected officials. Here is my initial message: I can verify that some people are reading [reporter]'s article published in today's edition. We have received telephone calls and e-mails since the opening bell this morning. Everyone wants to know why Wood Dale is spending $10,000,000 on a face-lift to the old train depot here. That would be the amount to spend on a new station of grand proportions. The agreement with METRA actually is for $10!!! This is stated clearly in the agreement, on page 1, in paragraph 1. This was reiterated publicly at the council meeting on 3/4/04, before the aldermen voted to approve the authorizing ordinance. I reiterate the mayor's request to your staff this morning to publish a correction in your newspaper tomorrow. We ask that you place it in Section 1 in a place at least as prominent as the article in the newspaper today. Please respond to this e-mail. Particularly, apprise me of your intentions regarding the corrections. The aldermen and the city clerk e-mailed words of encouragement to me as we awaited a response. The first newspaper response came from the reporter: Brad, I'm not sure how the word "million" snuck in the copy, but I'll find out and correct that immediately. I am well aware that the agreement is for $10 a year for 40 years. That was one of the odd items in the agreement. . . . Thanks for calling it to our attention. [reporter's name] As the e-mail messages were exchanged, pent-up frustrations began to emerge. I began to receive e-mails from elected officials that included the following words or phrases: "knuckleheads"; "it is indicative of the kind of garbage that is often printed"; and "it is time for the reporter to get a tape recorder." A testy update from the perpetrator arrived: Brad, While I realize everyone at city hall was quick to point the finger and call for my head for the error that appeared today, please see the memo below from my superior. [He] indicates someone on our copy desk made the million-dollar error without my knowledge, likely long after I was fast asleep. [reporter's name] The reporter also said that a staff exchange at the newspaper indicated that the desk had apparently inserted the "million" into the story and then compounded the felony by putting that figure in the headline. My response to the reporter read as follows: I appreciate your prompt response to my e-mail message this a.m. Please do not include me as being part of "everyone at city hall" who were "quick to point the finger" and call for your head. Another read of my message below would show that my comments were firm but neutral. Anyway, we need to get back to the real issue. Please make sure that the public, your Daily Herald readers, are informed through a correction in the newspaper tomorrow that the figure is indeed $10 per year (or $400 total for 40 years), instead of $10,000,000. There was another exchange of e-mails with the reporter that indicated he was as interested in defending himself as he was in correcting the problem: Brad: A quick review of the voice mails and e-mails I have received today, including the one you forwarded to every staff head in the city, would indicate that blame, as usual, was being dumped on me. I was merely trying to put out the storm between you and me by sending you the memo from my boss indicating that the error happened at the copy-desk level and had nothing to do with me. I hope that the aldermen and everyone that received your e-mail have been updated and informed that I was not the "idiot" in this situation. Nonetheless, the Herald erred and will correct it in tomorrow's paper. [signed by the reporter] My reply: I have an obligation to provide a "heads-up" to other city officials regarding information about the city being circulated to the public. Department managers and elected officials are informed about high-profile situations whenever possible because they do receive inquiries from different sources. Further, I copied the Daily Herald editors precisely because I considered the newspaper to be responsible in general, and not any one person in particular. Thanks for the update. I look forward to reading the newspaper tomorrow. We began to realize that someone in a position of authority at the paper might actually do something when the following e-mail message arrived in the afternoon: Brad, Sorry I took so long in getting back to you. I needed a while to sort out the details of how this error occurred. In a nutshell, a copy editor thought that a maintenance agreement between the city and METRA couldn't possibly be for $10; he added the "million" that he presumed the writer had mistakenly left out of the story. Here is what we'll do to set the record straight:
On the morning of March 10, 2004, the news story was indeed in Section 1 at the top of page 3, with this headline: "Wood Dale Officials Want More from METRA-New Depot Preferred over $10-a-Year Maintenance Deal, Aldermen Say." This news article included the correct dollar amount for the train depot fix-up. The story went on to state accurately that the city would not merely settle for repairs to the old depot because it is also pressing the transit agencies for a new train station. The retraction referral was in Section 1, at the top of page 4. My follow-up e-mail to the newspaper official and his response that morning went like this: Your follow-up concerning this matter was beyond my expectations. You noted the 10/10 error and arranged for a high-profile report in which the correct $10 is referenced. Thank you very much for the Daily Herald's swift and professional response. -Brad T. The newpaper's reply was worded in this way: Brad, No problem. Obviously, it was not a run-of-the-mill error. Thanks for your understanding. [signed by newspaper management] The results were excellent. The second article was of equal stature to the first and expanded the range of positive information concerning the city. Plus, a correction was published to help the reader understand why the information had changed. We had targeted the problem, emphasized the urgency, prompted newspaper staff at all levels to engage, and kept city officials informed at all times. Every effort was made to appeal to newspaper management to employ ethical and fair reporting to correct a mistake for which they were being called to task. Conclusion: Write What's RightThe immediate objective in both of these two false-reporting incidents was to promote the truth. The false report concerning the bike/pedestrian bridge, however, shows how the indirect approach can be ineffective. Presenting correct information in reports at meetings had not been enough to quash the byproducts of false reporting. The false report about the train depot compelled us to consider that a direct and active engagement of the offending media outlet could be effective. Presenting the facts and pressing the media to report on them proved to be a more thorough way to achieve the truth-in-reporting ideal. E-mail served this purpose quickly. Communications were documented, and all relevant parties were contacted at the same time. This method brought results in less than two days, while the other situation had lingered for two years. In addition to seeking immediate results in the train-depot instance, our longer-term goal was to convince the reporter and editors to think carefully about how they handle news stories. Only time will tell whether there will be any change in their reporting practices. In the meantime, I recommend that local government managers try the techniques used in the second false-reporting episode. They might help you to persuade the media to write what's right. |
|
|
Learn about the benefits of joining ICMA and receiving PM magazine as part of your benefits package at http://icma.org/join. To subscribe to PM, call 202/289-ICMA (202/289-4262) or e-mail bookstoremanager@icma.org. |
