Followup – DutchNews.nl Corrects Errors in Euthanasia Story While Associated Press Ignores Its Errors

As promised in last week’s blog entry, I contacted responsible parties at both the Associated Press and DutchNews.nl about needed corrections in a Dutch group’s advocacy for ‘mobile’ euthanasia teams that could provide that “service” to people in their own homes if their own doctors wouldn’t cooperate with their wishes.

The AP has a Statement of News Values and Principles, and it takes a strong strong, ethical stance on dealing with errors:

CORRECTIONS/CORRECTIVES:

Staffers must notify supervisory editors as soon as possible of errors or potential errors, whether in their work or that of a colleague. Every effort should be made to contact the staffer and his or her supervisor before a correction is moved.

When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor’s note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor’s note. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.

A corrective corrects a mistake from a previous cycle. The AP asks papers or broadcasters that used the erroneous information to use the corrective, too.

For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.

Great statement.  The trouble is, it’s only as good if the organization actually follows the stated value and doesn’t just treat it as ethical windowdressing.  The latter seems to the case at the AP.  First of all, I had to go through at least four different people before I got someone who gave me an email address for the chief of European desk at the AP.  I didn’t catch the name, but the email address was amax@ap.org.

Here is part of the email I sent to the email recipient I was given by the AP here in the US:

Dear bureau chief:

I was given this email address by someone at the international desk at the Associated Press in the United States.  I hope you are the appropriate recipient of this message.

My job entails tracking developments on euthanasia across the world and I am very familiar with the Dutch guidelines defining “eligibility.”  Your story misreports the guidelines in two different ways.

In honesty, I have already written about this problem on my blog (it’s not the first of this type with the AP).  I am including the URL and two excerpts from the blog that lays out the problems as well as document the inaccuracy of the info in the article:

After that, I included relevant sections excerpts of the blog entry, explaining that the description of “terminally ill” and “unbearable pain” were both incorrect in terms of Dutch guidelines for euthanasia.  And of course I included the links to the Dutch govt. sites that spell out the actual guidelines.

Since Friday, I have heard absolutely nothing from the Associated Press.  Nothing. That isn’t unusual or unexpected – but they might as well take their noble statement of principles down if the principles don’t really mean anything in practice.

Also on Friday, I contacted the editor of the Dutch News site.  I received a gracious email from the editor and the story was re-edited so that the description of the guidelines were accurate.  The story now includes a link to the govt. information on euthanasia guidelines as well.  Here’s the revised paragraph:

Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands under strict conditions. For example, the patient must ‘suffering unbearably’ and the doctor must be convinced the patient is making an informed choice. The opinion of a second doctor is also required.

For the Dutch euthanasia rules in English, click here

That was done quickly (although without acknowledging the prior error).  And they added info so readers could find more about the guidelines in Holland themselves.  I didn’t see and statement about ethics or principles on the Dutch News site, so I guess they just believe that correcting their mistakes is simply good journalistic practice.

I can only assume – contrary to the public statement on “values and principles,”  that the AP does not share the same view of correcting their mistakes.  –Stephen Drake