SurveyIf a newspaper or news programme publish/air a falsehood, the correction should be placed with equal prominence to the original error.
      – Thelevellers, 2010-05-12 at 13:09:21   (12 comments)

On 2010-05-12 at 13:11:42, Thelevellers wrote...
I'm sort of surprised this hasn't been done before, but I couldn't find it searching... I think it's essential it happens, because most people wont bother looking at the retractions section, and in many of the worst offending newspapers they hide it in amongst a large number of adverts. This means many people will continue to believe the falsehood, even when it was completely outrageous and without any truth whatsoever.
On 2010-05-12 at 19:58:46, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I'm not sure it'd ever have 'equal prominence' but it's surely better to have them not write rubbish in the first place? I mean, that's what they'll claim anyway - that it was a 'mistake' and it won't happen again, no doubt. My much older topic was in the same vein... http://www.discussionator.com/?id=396
On 2010-05-12 at 20:11:25, Thelevellers wrote...
OK, 'equal' prominence maybe not, but they can surely do better than the middle of the paper, somewhere hidden away? That would be better, but mistakes DO happen, and it's easier to get this to happen than your idea. I did see that in my search, and went with 'unsure' as like the others I agreed with the end, not so much the beginning! In an ideal world that would be in place (ok, ideal world we wouldn't need it :P) but I don;t see it happening. Ok, so 'my' (I probably stole it off a blog at some point tbh) idea is a little more likely to happen in the near future.
On 2010-05-13 at 18:50:44, DigitalBoss wrote...
welcome to the real world.
On 2010-05-13 at 22:28:46, Lee J Haywood wrote...
I don't read newspapers but if they already have corrections in them then that seems reasonable enough. The issue is that they blatantly publish complete nonsense, which influences the beliefs of huge numbers of people, and then as you say the correction doesn't have equal prominence so only the original story is remembered.
On 2010-05-14 at 08:15:06, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: What's that supposed to mean? That newspapers trying to con their readership is just how the world HAS to be? I know that's how it IS cause I have been reading various papers for a good few years now. I just think it would be good for the world if that was something that changed...
On 2010-05-14 at 08:17:30, Thelevellers wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Corrections aren't enough when you see just how wrong some stories are, and the current corrections have no impact on the paper, which they should to discourage all the blatantly misleading stories they publish. Half of the problem of course is that the Press Complaints Commission is industry run - i.e. it doesn't punish anyone because the people it's punishing run it. Quite how that's come about I don't know, but then looking at the last two governments I'm not really surprised...
On 2010-05-14 at 11:15:38, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Change = FoxNews
On 2010-05-14 at 21:45:04, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Surely the whole problem is that the newspaper industry as a whole doesn't care about accuracy in the first place? Newspapers are supposed to have fact checkers and, for example, a good scientifically-literate editor ought to be able to throw out the really stupid stuff.
On 2010-05-17 at 08:33:15, Thelevellers wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Yes, exactly. Which is why forcing them to make their corrections obvious would soon fix that attitude! If they found themselves devoting the first three pages of each issue to corrections, I'm sure they'd soon sharpen up! :P
On 2010-05-17 at 18:15:31, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Thelevellers: Hmm, well you may be right and it may be that people would agree with you... but how would it be enforced? It'd be seen as impractical by the newspapers themselves, and any law would seem draconian. Maybe the Chinese would be interested in implementing your idea though.
On 2010-05-17 at 19:49:56, Thelevellers wrote...
I think it would probably happen almost automatically if the PCC was actually independent. Or at least there would be actual problems for the papers if they screwed up enough. As it is, it's run by the papers, proving once again that the market can't self-regulate for shit!