Journalists are recognising they’re writing a rough draft of history – and can’t say definitively ‘that’s the way it is’
How should journalists address corrections, engage with the public, and report on stories such as COVID-19? Kevin M. Lerner addresses these questions in this crossposting from The Conversation.
On April 4, a Los Angeles Times story about the varying effects of the novel coronavirus contained a remarkable paragraph:
“One thing to keep in mind before we continue: It is possible that the information you read below will be contradicted in the coming weeks or that gaps in knowledge today will soon be filled as scientists continue to study the virus.”
The paragraph was remarkable because the Los Angeles Times was admitting that its information was incomplete and subject to revision. News organisations, intent on projecting authority and knowledge, rarely admit their fallibility or lack of omniscience.
