Our mistake

It blew up, and then, to some degree, it blew over.

But the responsible thing to do is to make it clear when first impressions are mistaken.

On first glance, Bill 38 in the House of Assembly looked draconian. In an effort to enforce health orders, the government seemed to be opening the door — opening your door, in fact — to warrantless searches by police, at least for as long as the current public health crisis exists.

And we reported that. We weren’t the only local media left with that impression, or the only ones who reported it.

The news business moves fast, and reporters and editors are required not only to move quickly, but to handle a vast amount of information on a variety of topics. Sometimes, between time constraints and the volume of information, mistakes get made. That’s not an excuse — it’s meant as a form of explanation.

The legislation does not actually allow the police to make warrantless searches of people’s homes. Provincial health inspectors can search some properties, but not to the extent it appeared on first blush.

We made that clear in a followup story on Thursday, where we also pointed out we’d been mistaken: “The core of the confusion stemmed from the definitions within the act. Section 50(1) references investigators having the ability ‘at all reasonable times and without a warrant’ … to ‘enter any premises.’ Premises, as defined by the act, include boats, motor vehicles, bodies of water and trailers, among others — but not dwellings. Section 50(2) specifically prevents any government official from entering a home without a warrant.”

Another point: “investigators” in the act are, in fact, investigators appointed by the minister of health, not police officers.

It’s tempting for some media organizations to simply move ahead to new things and not actually admit their own mistakes, presenting new stories on the topic without ever directly addressing past errors.

You may get to save a little face that way, perhaps, but you do a disservice to the people who depend on your media outlet for accurate information, especially in times as serious as the ones we are now in.

The problem with failing to give a clear explanation is that the public may end up believing and depending on information that’s not effectively corrected. And, with the second life that stories have now on the internet, uncorrected inaccuracies can live on for years.

The responsible thing is to say “we got it wrong,” and provide the correct information as soon as possible.

As we said in the second sentence of a story on Thursday, “In Tuesday’s edition, The Telegram incorrectly reported an increase in powers for police as a result of the amended legislation.”

That time, we got it wrong.

But we both learn from our mistakes, and correct them.