As Dan Gillmor suggests, a better name would probably be Living Topics. The service, which is an amazing technological feat, groups news stories and deconstructs them for better online viewing. Google says the automated initiative, which it launched in co-operation with the New York Times and the Washington Post, does three things:

• Puts the entire coverage of a story under a single URL
• Chunks up the story elements by theme and form
• Customizes the reading experience so each person sees story developments new to them
  

The main benefit appears to be that it automatically generates context for stories by creating bite-sized content summaries and aggressively linking between them. For example, users can sort the story content by subtopics, major characters, quotes, external links, images, graphics, video, audio, etc. The size of the story summary also indicates its importance and newness, according to this Google video.

The Living Stories site isn’t optimized for my iPhone in any way. No doubt that’s coming; this sorting and grouping feature would seem tailor-made for mobile users.

Each topic starts with a dynamic topic summary and timeline. But the service doesn’t just reformat existing content. At the story level, there are some subtle differences from the versions that appear on the news outlet’s website. Take the War in Afghanistan Living Story and a story that’s part of it (Afghan Says Army Will Need Help Until 2024) , which is also on the Times’ website. In the Living Stories version …

• a link to Hamid Karzai, for example, goes not to a detailed bio like the one on the Times site, but to a pop-up snippet description
• there’s a link (“pledged to begin withdrawing American troops”) to a related story that isn’t made on the Times site
• an interactive map, which is not in the Times story, shows the location of the capital, Kabul.

The service has the potential to improve the online reading experience in a number of ways:

• by narrowing the inverted pyramid, so stories are less broad at the top — and more to the point — because the context surrounds it
• by including more summaries, which usability advocate Jakob Nielsen says are crucial for online reading
• by more aggressively linking content than human editors can — thereby improving the user experience on small screens

Still, there seem to be limitations. The importance of topic pages would seem to be diminishing as people increasingly consume content at the story level via Twitter and Facebook links. And I can think of many stories that won’t fit easily under topic designations.

But it’s a worthy innovation. I’m waiting for the mobile version.

Alexander blames the Post’s layoff of copy editors since 2005; it cut the number of full-time copy editors by almost half — from 75 to 43.

Obviously, errors of this type are bad. Sloppy presentation suggests sloppy reporting. But what’s the best way to get clean copy? Are layers of copy editors really the solution?

I’ve been playing around with a new tool for crowd-sourced editing called GooseGrade. With this free widget installed on a site, curmudgeonly readers can easily apply their virtual red pen to suggest corrections. It’s an open-source approach that empowers the audience to improve content.  Note: I’m not using it currently because it locked up my WordPress (publishing system) last week. But I liked the product and will try it again.

How great is the problem Alexander highlights? A 2007 study by Michael Bugeja and Jane Peterson from Iowa State University suggests it’s around 8% of all errors. Spelling, grammar and typos account for about 4% of errors; using the wrong word — 3.6%. (Misidentifying a person or reporting a wrong date — that’s another matter).

And who actually finds errors? It’s difficult to assess the effectiveness of copy editors. (They no doubt make a big difference.) But a 2005 study by University of Nevada academics Donica Mensing and Merlyn Oliver suggests that adding levels of oversight may not be the most effective approach. In the survey of editors at 300 small-town dailies in the United States, titled “Editors at Small Newspapers Say Error Problems Serious,” here’s who discovered the error once a story was published:

• a person mentioned in the story (50%)
• a reader (26.5%)
• a member of the newsroom staff (23%)

Further, even when published, minor errors of the kind that Alexander points out do not seem to significantly affect a media organization’s credibility. In his 2002 study “Getting it right? Not in 59 percent of stories” University of Oregon professor Scott Maier, states: “By several measures, the relationship between errors and newspaper credibility was statistically significant but weak.” He adds that errors have a slightly greater effect on how people judge the story itself, but generally only when the reporter’s mistake involves an error of judgment.

It’s interesting that many of the people who commented on the Post’s article were critical, but not about the increase in errors. They were more concerned that the Post had failed to account publicly for a controversial fundraising event that came to light last week. In a flyer, the Post advertised a “salon” at the publisher’s home that offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials — and the Post’s editorial staff. (Publisher Katharine Weymouth did comment publicly on the issue the same day.)

As one commenter pointed out, the bigger problem is that many news organizations lack a system for quickly addressing errors — factual, subjective and ethical — pointed out by the public.

It’s this lack of accountability that seems to be an issue with media credibility — not the errors themselves. A study by the Canadian Media Research Consortium concluded in 2008 that only about half of Canadians believed the media was doing its job with full accuracy (51.6% said news organizations generally got their facts straight; 55.7% said news organizations were careful to check and verify information). But the kicker was that only 33.8% said they believed news organizations were willing to admit mistakes.

Better procedures for finding and correcting published errors may be what’s needed — not more copy editors.

July 10, 2009: Correction made on silly usage error (see Comment 4 below). Thanks, Carol!