Abstract:Background: To examine the errors and corrections in the New York Times (NYT) and to assess if there is an imbalance towards overstating the pandemic severity, which may support more extreme restrictions or understating the severity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 articles that had corrections made and reported in the NYT Corrections Page. We categorized authors in a NYT COVID-19 article as a NYT reporter, NYT other, or independent author. We calculated the number and type of corrections by author type (NYT reporter, NYT other, and independent author) and number and percentage of corrections indicating an over- or under-statement of the COVID-19 situation. Results: There were 576 total corrections for the included 486 articles. Forty-three percent (n=245) corrections specifically pertained to COVID-19. Compared to corrections not pertaining to COVID-19, corrections pertaining to COVID-19 were less likely to be about spelling (0% vs 23.6%), locations (1.2% vs 16.3%), or title/degree (0% vs 10.6%), and more likely to be about a vaccine/vaccination (21.2% vs 0.3%), incidence/cases of conditions (12.2% vs 0.3%), or disease testing (7.8% vs 0.3%; p<0.001). Compared to corrections not pertaining to COVID-19, corrections pertaining to COVID-19 were less likely to result in an equivocal tone (16.7% vs 88.8%), but they were more likely to both overstate (54.7% vs 8.5%) and understate (23.7% vs 2.4%) the situation in the original text (p<0.001). Ten reporters (of 346) accounted for 24% of the corrections. The reporter with the single most corrections accounted for 7% of the corrections. Conclusions: Differential tone of the corrections suggests bias in the reporting of COVID-19 topics in a top news outlet. The reporting of unbiased information is a first step in addressing issues of misinformation in public health messaging.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The paper attempts to address whether there is bias in The New York Times' coverage of COVID-19-related news, specifically whether it tends to exaggerate the severity of the pandemic, thereby potentially supporting stricter restrictions or underestimating the severity of the pandemic. The study evaluates these corrections to explore potential biases in media reporting by analyzing The New York Times' correction records to assess whether these corrections are more inclined to exaggerate or underestimate the situation. Specifically, the researchers aim to answer this question through the following points: 1. **Types of Errors and Corrections**: Analyze the types of errors and their corrections in The New York Times' coverage of COVID-19. 2. **Direction of Corrections**: Assess whether these corrections are more inclined to exaggerate or underestimate the severity of the pandemic. 3. **Differences in Author Types**: Compare the errors and corrections among different types of authors (e.g., New York Times reporters, columnists, independent authors) to see if there are significant differences. 4. **Time Interval**: Examine the time interval from article publication to correction to understand the speed and efficiency of corrections. Through these analyses, the researchers hope to reveal whether there is systematic reporting bias in The New York Times' coverage of COVID-19 and the potential impact of such bias on public perception and policy-making.

An empirical cross-sectional analysis of the corrections in the New York Times COVID-19 coverage