Argument: In an age of declining journalistic standards, forcing editors to get their facts right is a good start.

In response to an ever faster news agenda, produced by ever more pressured journalists, sloppiness may be seen as inevitable [i] . As a result, anything that is unlikely to result in legal action may be given a bye. In most situations, that sets the bar way too high. The mere mention of a private citizen in a negative light in a local paper may not be the stuff of national press attention and is unlikely to get far in the courts but can affect that persons standing in their community and with their neighbours in a profound way.

Anything that pushes reporters and editors to go that extra step to check their facts before they go to print seems like a sensible preventative measure [ii] . This could help prevent newspapers citing ‘experts’ who are not actually expert, a Forbes columnist found that he could portray himself as expert on all sorts of things and get his comments in articles for even very reputable media organisations such as the New York Times without even the most basic of background checks. [iii] The knowledge that they may lose both space and credibility in the next edition would seem to be a rather neat way of achieving that goal.

[i] The Huffington Post. Jeff Sorensen. 24 Hour News Killed Journalism 20 August 2012.

[ii] Article 19. Right of Reply.

[iii] Forbes. David Their. How this guy lied his way into MSNBC, ABC News, the New York Times and more. 18 July 2012.

Candidate 1: "The issue of credibility is an important one. If a story that was broadly true can be picked to death by the PR and Legal departments of companies, then it places a real burden on the future of investigative and campaigning journalism. One minor mistake, plastered across the front page, will inevitably encourage readers to question the story more generally as it appears to suggest that both points of view have equal merit. A broadly true story of an industrial giant polluting the environment or a bank indulging in corruption is not negated by getting a single fact wrong. The company, of course, will use any detail to challenge the whole story, risking the reputation of the publication in the process. This may ultimately mean that journalists are simply much more cautious and so will not publish any stories that will likely bring about a response in the form of a reply from the target of the article."
Candidate 2: "Opposition seem to be arguing, ‘This is difficult, let’s do nothing’ – the rallying call of apathy down the ages. There may well be grounds for a wider right of reply – indeed as most news outlets increasingly favour their online presence many of their practical arguments of the past fall away. The disadvantage of regulation is that it empowers government in relation to the press, litigation favours the wealthy. A right of reply favours the readers as the final arbiter."
Candidate 3: "The on-going agglomeration of news and opinion is a wider and deeper issue than tackling factual inaccuracies and one that needs to be resolved in other ways. Frequently, that’s the very point to be addressed by the courts – whether a statement is legitimate comment or is being masqueraded as fact [i] . The right of reply is not presented as a cure all for the media as a whole but it is a useful way of getting the basics right before addressing the higher-level concerns that often stem from these fundamental errors.

[i] The ‘fact or opinion’ distinction is crucial to cases of defamation it basics are set out here ."
Candidate 4: "Prop correctly identifies conveying information as a key role of the media – there are others; informed and impartial comment and, critically, a relevant news agenda. It is hard to see how chasing a story off the front page to make room for the right of reply fulfills these other requirements. Equally, where there is dispute, surely the courts are best placed to resolve it – driving the middle path between two inaccuracies is a pretty poor route to truth."
Candidate 5: "It seems unlikely that there would be a rush to offer corrections where it was to the advantage of an individual or organisation, so let us not pretend this is the noble pursuit of truth at any cost. Where a major mistake is made by a news outlet, its competitors are usually only too happy to point the fact out, vastly magnifying the redress compared to the original mistake, as shown by the example cited by the proposition with the BBC attacking inaccuracies in a Daily Telegraph article [i] . Where it is a minor error, it’s questionable as to whether a right to reply actually helps or simply fuels speculation on the basis that the aggrieved party seems to be squabbling over the details. Alternatively, where a mistake is genuinely defamatory then it is a criminal matter and should be settled in the courts rather than in a grubby fix-up between the parties.

[i] The examiner.com. Ryan Witt. Fox News makes three large factual, graphical errors over the last week (Video). 15 December 2011."
Candidate 6: "The notion that the print media has lost its power since the emergence of the Internet is simply untrue. Not only are they still a major source of news for many – they are particularly a source of news for other news-makers. Blogs and other exclusively online sites rarely ‘break’ stories – with the exception of those that act in the same way as regular print editions such as the Huffington Post. Identifying those news outlets that are large enough to be registered companies is really not beyond the wit on humankind equally, imposing the regulations on those already covered by libel legislation would seem fairly obvious."

The issue of credibility is an important one. If a story that was broadly true can be picked to death by the PR and Legal departments of companies, then it places a real burden on the future of investigative and campaigning journalism. One minor mistake, plastered across the front page, will inevitably encourage readers to question the story more generally as it appears to suggest that both points of view have equal merit. A broadly true story of an industrial giant polluting the environment or a bank indulging in corruption is not negated by getting a single fact wrong. The company, of course, will use any detail to challenge the whole story, risking the reputation of the publication in the process. This may ultimately mean that journalists are simply much more cautious and so will not publish any stories that will likely bring about a response in the form of a reply from the target of the article.
