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

Newspaper journalists are viewed as important purveyors of information—information that should be unbiased, especially in times of uncertainty. We sought to examine the corrections in the New York Times (NYT) and assess if there is an imbalance towards overstating the pandemic severity, which may support more extreme measures. In our cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19 articles that had corrections reported in the NYT “corrections page”, we assessed 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. Compared to non-COVID-19 corrections, COVID-19 corrections were less likely to result in an equivocal tone, but they were more likely to both overstate and understate the situation in the original text . Multiple reporters accounted for one-quarter of corrections. 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.