The Public Editor: Survey for accuracy produces above-average grade

The spring of 2005 was one of The Bee's darkest times.

Longtime Metro columnist, Diana Griego Erwin, had resigned, accused by editors of making things up in her columns, probably for years.

A subsequent Bee investigative story laid out the sorry details. In the end, the conclusion was inescapable: She had written fiction in a nonfiction business.

The fallout was acute, inside and outside the paper. There was abundant second-guessing, a series of internal staff meetings and a consultant brought in to lead ethics seminars.

The Bee's most long-standing and cynical critics had an I-told-you-so field day, the dismal episode affirming their dark, snarly and conspiratorial views.

Most readers, though, simply raised straightforward and embarrassing questions:

How could it have happened for so long? Are stories checked for accuracy? Are the editors inept? Is fabrication rampant?

And the most important question of all: Can we trust the paper?

There were changes as new and revitalized internal checks and balances were instituted. And my office became involved as well.

I reinstated a survey of accuracy letters that had been started by my predecessor, but which had stopped when he left the paper. The letters are sent to people quoted or named in Bee stories.

Today, I want to tell you about the survey results so far, given there is now enough information from which to draw some informed conclusions.

Before getting into more detail, let me say the paper has graded out a solid "above average" or a "B" on three main points: overall satisfaction with the paper, The Bee's journalism and the paper's community service.

While some of the sources have complained about errors of fact, bad headlines, pushy reporters, faulty photo captions and the like, none have accused the paper of fabrication, dishonesty or lack of integrity.

In fact, a large majority have responded positively, especially when asked whether the reporter understood the topic they were discussing.

Frankly, the positive trend was noticeable from the start, but I felt I needed a bigger sample before writing about the results.

This is how the program works:

I send letters randomly to people quoted or named in staff-written Bee stories. They are told that the survey is intended to enhance The Bee's credibility and enforce accuracy and accountability.

"The survey's goals are to ensure that sources of information are quoted accurately, represented fairly and treated professionally by Bee reporters and editors."

They are promised public confidentiality but told their responses will be shared with the reporter and supervising editors.

The one-page survey asks specific questions such as whether names were spelled correctly, whether comments and quotes were reported accurately, whether the story was fair and accurate, whether the headline reflected the story's content, etc.

Sources are also asked to provide any other observations they have about the story, and many do.

Finally, respondents are asked to grade the paper on a scale of 1 to 5 in the categories of overall satisfaction with The Bee, the paper's journalism and its community service (a brochure about the paper's community services is provided).

A grade of 1 is "excellent," a 2 "above average," a 3 "average," a 4 "below average" and a 5 "unacceptable."

So far, approximately 300 letters have been sent and 150 have been returned, with an average grade of 2 for all three categories.

There are some caveats. Not all respondents answered each question or assigned a grade for each category, particularly in rating the paper's community service, which some people have no knowledge of.

Also, while letters for all the paper's approximately 105 reporters and several columnists have been sent, some multiple times, not all have been returned.

That means I have no results for a small number of reporters, but efforts to make sure they are included will continue as the program is ongoing.

I know some reporters remain anxious about the survey, nervous about how their editors will react to a critical response.

But I think it's clear by now that the survey is just one tool to use on the path to the greater goal of improving the paper and restoring and maintaining its standards and credibility.

And given the fiasco of 2005, that's no small accomplishment.

Certainly many of those who have participated in the survey have expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to comment and to be involved in the feedback.

Said one survey respondent, a Sacramento attorney: "Although this is the first time I have been contacted by The Bee in regards to accuracy of quotes attributed to me, I applaud the fact that you are making these efforts to verify the accuracy of the paper's reporting."

Others often had positive things to say about a reporter's work.

An Indian casino official had this to say about a reporter he dealt with: "(the reporter) made a solid effort to be fair by listening and reporting what was said. He did not re-characterize the comments in order to fit into a standard story line, and we appreciate that."

A police sergeant said of another reporter: "He asked a lot of relevant and follow-up type questions to clarify points."

A government official said this about a reporter on a complicated story: "(She) is very bright and committed to getting both facts and concepts right."

As painful and public as the past mistake was, it is heartening to know today that the paper's work, as judged by those in its stories, is largely considered accurate and fair.

That's a good starting point from which to build, because no one should be satisfied with "above average."

About the writer:

• The Public Editor deals with complaints and concerns about The Sacramento Bee's content. His opinions are his own. You can contact the Public Editor by mail at P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852; or by calling him directly at (916) 321-1250.