The ugly side of editing

What's the worst thing that can go wrong in the newspaper? And what does the editor do when that happens?

A recent experience can answer both questions.

With hundreds of stories a day in the process of being found, made and processed, a newspaper is always going to have a number of minor errors. We always strive to correct each one. But the worst thing that can happen is publishing a really big error.

A recent report in the Birmingham Mail on the violent death of a teenager carried the wrong picture of the deceased. Too long a story to go into all the details why, but basically we were inadvertently given the wrong picture of a youth with the same name, same age, similar appearance and, in good faith, this was published.

The Birmingham Mail was not the only media outlet to have used the erroneous material. But our use resulted in a local mother whose teenager was alive and well contacting us to complain. She was quite rightly upset at being told of the error, but even more so because some people had called her expressing their sympathy with her loss. Cards had arrived. Her child's best friend had phoned in tears.

We had basically told an ordinary mother going about her everyday business that her child had died... when in actual fact they were alive and kicking and nowhere near the incident which killed a teenager of the same name. Not good. Indeed, the worst thing that can happen. The real ugly side of editing.

So what does the man or woman sitting in the editor's chair do on such occasions?

In my mind this was serious stuff. I was made aware of the issue shortly after 7am. By 7.20am I wiped that morning's diary clear as I realised the enormity of the error. This was something that I had to deal with, quickly, efficiently and personally.

1. First things first, I called the mother. a/ To verify that this was the error it appeared to be. b/ To apologise. c/ To explain the details of what had happened. d/ To agree the wording of an immediate correction and apology to be printed in all editions that day. e/ And, most importantly in my mind, to arrange a time when she was available for me to visit in person later that morning.

2. Calls to other news media to ensure that the existence of the erroneous picture was immediately known, that is was removed from any files and that any organisation that had used it fully understood the implications and the need to resolve/retract/correct/apologise.

3. A call to the local florist to arrange for the quick preparation of a huge bunch of flowers.

4. A trip to the press site to pick up the first copy of the Birmingham Mail carrying the correction.

5. A ten-mile journey to the mother's home, via picking up the flowers.

6. A long sit down and chat with mum and child, explaining, reassuring, apologising and, at their prompt, even joining with them in a small smile at the near-death experience (albeit in print), before reiterating that we were taking the matter very seriously.

7. Further communications with other media affected who were planning visit(s) to let them know how this had gone, and to advise them that having received flowers it might be appropriate for other ex-gratia treats to be offered as gestures of goodwill. For info, a family meal out at a local pub and a pair of trainers for a delighted teenager were among ideas proposed by other media involved. There was no malicious intent, no defamation or other legal issues. But this family deserved to be treated well.

8. A long debrief with all relevant Birmingham Mail staff. In truth, no-one internally was cuplable. This was a genuine error made outside of our organisation, and this had been published in good faith. But it was still useful and crucial to talk it through, reviewing our procedures and considering any improvements or double-checks we could put in place.

9. Throughout the above, several conversations as the issue progressed with the provider of the original erroneous picture (for info, themselves galled, apologetic to the extreme and intent on visiting the mother concerned).

The moral of the story? It doesn't matter who outside the newspaper's organisation got what wrong, as editor you are responsible for publishing what in effect was terrible, upsetting news that contained a major inaccuracy.

Yes, editing can be fun. The breaking news, perfecting headlines on deadlines, meeting Prime Ministers and football stars, making a positive difference to the lives of local people.

But the ugly side of editing is also there. And it ain't fun. But it is more important to resolve than anything else.