Readers' Ombudsman: Striving for accuracy while performing a miracle every day

Published on Sunday 20 July 2008 22:01

THIS week's theme, it would appear from my cyber-mailbag, is accuracy. And I'm probably going to end up saying something I shouldn't.

The first to censure us last week was Jo Pemberton. "Please could sharpen up your identification of species in wildlife pictures. In your magazine a common seal was identified as a grey seal and a minke whale was identified as a porpoise."

However, she relented – a little: "At least the animals pictured yesterday do occur in Scotland. In part one of Scotland's Munros issued a few weeks back, P29 shows some deer which are presumably meant to be Scottish red deer, but in fact are one of the Asian species – I think barasingha or swamp deer.

"Animal pictures on the web are often wrongly identified and I think it behoves a serious newspaper like The Scotsman to check the identification before publication. There are plenty of people around to help, for example in the universities and conservation organisations."

Well, that's true. But I am afraid it probably would not be physically possible. Putting a paper the size of The Scotsman together on a daily basis is a miracle of organisation. Forget starting with a blank sheet, we start with about 80 blank sheets every morning. And as stories break and pictures come in, stories and pictures are being planned in, then repositioned, then thrown out. There really is constant change. There simply is not the time to approach an independent expert for help, e-mail them over the picture for verification, receive said verification, then kick the picture out ten minutes later and repeat the process for the new picture that goes with the new story.

Can we reasonably expect the average sub-editor to be able to recognise the difference between a barasingha or swamp deer and a red deer at a glance? The answer, I'm afraid, is no. We have to rely on captions, we use reliable professional sources and we have to trust that they have done their part of the job right. We are very good at amending captions once we know they are inaccurate. We try very hard for accuracy in everything we do. It is drilled in to trainee journalists. Its importance can never be overstated.

And now here's one of those things you should never say out loud. And certainly never write, because reporters will see it and think it's OK to be reckless and cavalier. The truth is, it doesn't matter how hard we try (we do and will continue to do so) we will never get it all right all the time. There, I've said it.

And now to regret saying it (even more quickly than I thought). "Surely the old Royal High School is on the south side of Calton Hill ('High hopes for restored pride', 5 July)?" writes Steuart Campbell. "A correction is required."

Can we reasonably expect our reporters to know that the old Royal High School is on the south side of Calton Hill? Of course we can.

Even if we thought it was not reasonable then there is no way they should write it is on the north side of the hill without being positive that it is. Which of course, it isn't.

It is embarrassing for us to get a reference to such a landmark wrong. It was a mistake we should not have made.

But now the last criticism over accuracy for this week. At least I think it is, but it is rather cryptic. Walter R Davies writes: "Re photo on page three on Monday. Udderly unbelievable – a BULL – udderly impossible."

Now I took that to mean that the creature in the picture displays an udder, and therefore cannot be a bull. But I've looked and I've looked and I've looked at the four pictures we carried of what we said was a bull in a swimming pool, and I can see no trace of an udder. I can only assume there is some other tell-tale sign that I am missing. I am a townie. Perhaps other readers could help. I am, however, certain it is not a barasingha or swamp deer.

Contact Ian Stewart on 0131-620 8633 or at readersombudsman @scotsman.com, or 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS.