That time I avoided a big correction

Welcome back to Storytelling by Sean. I plan to use this newsletter to tell some interesting tales from my 30 years in journalism and communications, and I always welcome your feedback.

Whether you're a reporter or you're in the public relations world and interacting with reporters, errors can be an unfortunate part of the game. Virtually every reporter I know prides themselves on accuracy, and will do everything in their power to avoid making mistakes. But if they get that call from a PR person that starts with "I just read your article, and..." there's a good chance it's leading to a discussion about facts being in dispute.

While I always strived for accuracy during my journalism career, I'd be lying if I said I didn't make a few mistakes. One time, I accidentally added an extra word to an article, which made it read as though a company was opposed to a certain issue, when really they were in support of it. That required an immediate correction. Another time I referred to "investment bankers" as "investment bakers," as though they were planning an IPO for a croissant. I needed to fix that one as well. And, perhaps worst of the bunch, I once edited a piece in a magazine aimed at seniors that mentioned "flexible shifts".... only I excluded the "f" in the second word. Let me tell you, that one did not go over well with the retiree audience!

But this story isn't about the corrections I've had to make... it's about a big one I avoided.

The year was 2002 and I was in the flagship New York bureau of Bloomberg News. My job was to help the Finance team cover quarterly results for a number of U.S.-based banks. In addition to writing earnings stories about some mid-sized institutions, I was also tasked with asking Wall Street investors for their early thoughts on the results, some of which were released minutes earlier.

I took this task very seriously and began calling up potential analysts and investors to interview. Within a few minutes, I had someone on the phone whose firm had a holding of the bank in question. I explained who I was and that I'd like to get his reaction for an article we were writing. We had a brief conversation, including his comments on the earnings performance.

I transcribed my notes from a recording I'd made of the call and quickly sent a couple of sentences ("string") to the reporter working on the article. It was soon published on the Bloomberg wire for the world to read. Within the hour, I was informed there was a serious problem.

Summoned to meet with the Bureau Chief (whom I hadn't met previously; what an introduction!), I was told that the investor contacted him directly, claiming that not only did he not agree to be quoted, but that the comments were taken out of context. This allegation was a big one -- and because it happened in NYC, it just seemed to take on a more ominous tone than "investment bakers."

Instead of yelling or getting panicked about the situation, the Bureau Chief calmly asked for my side of the story. I explained what I had done, and had received the investor's full consent. I was then asked whether I'd recorded the conversation, which thankfully I did. I handed off my minidisc containing the recording (remember, this was 20 years ago; no USB or smartphone recording devices yet) so that the Bureau Chief and others could analyze it.

Sitting at my desk while this happened, I began to second-guess myself. Did I fail to represent myself as a journalist? Did the investor just think we were shooting the breeze? Was word going to make its way around the newsroom that the new Canadian kid may have messed up one of the day's big stories with his carelessness? Did I need to hire a lawyer? Better Call Saul!

Soon, the Bureau Chief and my editor came back, minidisc in hand, and delivered the good news. They'd reviewed my tape: not only were my interview intentions made clear (and agreed to), but there was no sign of taking any comments out of context. They spoke with the investor and declined to make a correction. I started breathing normally again.

That was twenty years ago and since then, I've sometimes had to play the part of the annoying PR guy, making similar requests for corrections. I hate making those calls as much as I used to hate taking them as a journalist. But how can you, as a PR pro, make those requests as painless as possible? Here are a few suggestions:

• Do your research beforehand. Is the error that someone is asking you to fix on their behalf truly an error? Is it a difference in opinion? Is it possible there's room for interpretation? Is it a matter of tone or context? Was your client misquoted? Is it possible they weren't clear in what they said? Is it possible the reporter received incorrect or conflicting information? All of this may be worth going back to the reporter with for the sake of accuracy, but it's important to thoroughly research this before ever picking up the phone to ask for a correction. And by the way - in fairness to the media, that initial request should be a phone call when possible.
• What are you asking the reporter to do??Sometimes, it's a matter of changing a small detail that was reported incorrectly, and the ask on your end is quite clear. But sometimes, the solution is much more nuanced, and you may have to work with the reporter to find it. And will your client be happy with your proposed outcome, even if it's achieved -- or are they asking for a different and/or unattainable resolution?
• Be respectful. Reporters are quite diligent about accuracy, and some could be taken aback by any suggestion that their work is wrong. If you can explain what you're asking for and its importance to your client, and do so in a respectful way, you're much more likely to have a willing ear than if you're yelling and screaming for an immediate correction, with threats of lawsuits and the like.
• Don't re-write the story!?When I was a reporter, I would receive emails from PR folks that "helpfully" re-wrote portions of my already-published article. This can come across as insulting, unless it's specifically asked for. Instead, a reporter may come back with a question of "is such and such a phrase more accurate?" -- or they may not consult you at all.
• Understand the decision tree. Reporters, especially those working for large outlets, have editors and other decision-makers to answer to. Even if you've convinced the author that a fact needs correcting, they still may have to go through proper channels. This could take time, depending on a variety of factors. Be patient, even when time is of the essence on your end.

To be clear, none of this will guarantee that you'll be able to achieve the desired outcome. But if you have to make?that call, at least be ready to do it the right way.

Masters of the Multiverse

Last week, I took part in a media briefing about how my company, DXC Technology, is operating within the multiverse for our IT customers. Given this was my first exposure to this incredible new world, I was blown away by the experience.

At first, I thought it may be the equivalent of playing a Nintendo Wii game, where the avatar you create walks around aimlessly in an imaginary world, occasionally jumping on mushrooms to double in size. But there's so much more to the metaverse, including interacting with other people (physically and verbally), teleporting to different settings, watching and participating in presentations, asking questions, taking in different views, and even doing a dance when the mood strikes.

DXC is doing tremendous things with this technology and it's something I hope we can talk more about to the media going forward.

If you enjoyed reading this edition of?Storytelling by Sean, please encourage your friends and colleagues to subscribe. If you have any feedback, please drop me a note on LinkedIn, on Twitter @seanbpasternak, or via [email protected].