If it’s January, it must be time to report back to our readers about our record on accuracy for the year just completed.

The short explanation is that we published 549 corrections and clarifications in 2006, 30 more than we published in 2005. Despite our renewed efforts to be more accurate and thorough, the numbers increased slightly last year. We’re not happy about that, but let me offer some context.

The Spokesman-Review in recent years has been much more committed to correcting errors, a trend that is consistent with the rest of the newspaper industry. Setting the record straight is an important part of what we do and we’ve learned over time that we actually can improve our credibility with readers by being honest about our mistakes. As one reader put it last summer in a conversation with newsroom staffers, there’s a reward for getting the story first, but there is a greater reward for getting it right.

After seeing the year-end numbers on accuracy, columnist and reporter Jim Kershner noted in an e-mail to me that we should not be surprised by the slight increase because we have put an intense emphasis on corrections. The sheer number of corrections isn’t the issue, he said. The only goal that really matters, he said, is setting the record straight, once and for all.

“My sense is that the cultural shift toward transparency has resulted in people being less reluctant to report errors and write corrections,” Features Editor Ken Paulman wrote to me in an e-mail.

“I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t be concerned about the number of errors — that is still clearly cause for alarm,” Paulman wrote. “But it isn’t outside the realm of possibility that the number of errors has actually decreased.”

We’ll never know how many errors we avoided as a result of our emphasis on accuracy, but I think it’s safe to assume that we certainly prevented a significant number.

Putting out a daily newspaper is a human endeavor and mistakes are inevitable, especially given the constant deadlines we face. The elimination of all errors is simply not a realistic goal. Engineers and other professionals have told me that there is no room for error in their work and they believe the same rules should apply to us. But I like to counter that while we publish our mistakes prominently on the cover of the local news section, my brother, a veterinarian in Indiana, gets to bury his.

In a column on this topic that I wrote last January, I stated that one of our goals for 2006 would be to reduce the number of errors. Sadly, we didn’t. But it wasn’t for lack of trying. We conducted mandatory, staffwide training on the topic. We developed accuracy checklists for editors, reporters and photographers to use as they prepare content for publication. We raised the profile of the issue with frequent conversations and monthly reports to the staff on our results.

The number of errors caused by various sources who simply gave us the wrong information rose from 45 instances in 2005 to 83 last year, a considerable increase. Many of those errors involved dates, times and locations. I would urge those who handle public relations and publicity for organizations and agencies to be more vigilant when they provide us information for publication. Education reporter Sara Leaming acknowledges that she and her colleagues should all be more accurate, but noted, “Often we are only as good as sources.”

As I’ve mentioned to the staff, we’ll be taking a new look at our editing and reporting processes this year with an eye toward eliminating simple mistakes such as misspelled names, incorrect facts, sloppy math and typographical errors in stories, headlines and photo captions. In the meantime, if you think we have made an error of fact, call (509) 459-5430.