People who think to have been publicly misrepresented or wrongly and inaccurately represented have the right to ask for a correction and to re-establish the truth about them. There is no doubt about it.
Accuracy and fair reporting are the fundamental pillars of journalism. It's the basis of professional ethics.
The need to maintain true
accountability demands that the press publishes a correction whenever it is found to be necessary.
That's why many news media not only have correction pages but have also established internal watchdog system such as an ombudsman or have subscribed to self-regulation bodies as news (or press) councils.
Anyone has the right to see incorrect information rectified, celebrities as well as common people and every untruth must be corrected, no matter if it's about high ideals or simply common facts.
Money shouldn't count in this process then. That's the point raised by
The Observer readers' editor,
Stephen Pritchard in his last article.
"What price the truth now?", he wonders.
Millionaire entrepreneur
Sir David Tang - Pritchard reported - has recently launched
ICorrect.com, a site which claims to be the first website to "correct permanently any lies, misinformation and misrepresentations that permeate in cyberspace".
"ICorrect protects one's reputation in cyberspace forever",
the site says. It let individuals and corporations to post corrections against accusations selected by the corrector form the internet or other media.
But the problem is - Pritchard highlighted - that, firstly, to publish a correction costs and secondly, it costs an individual $1,000 and corporations $5,000 a year. Moreover no verification process will take place and the site "makes no guarantee regarding the reliability, accuracy, legitimacy or quality of posting, of which correctors are entirely responsible." No opportunity is offered, Pritchard said, to the publisher to defend an apparent error.
ICorrect is full of accusations against publications like
The Spectator, the
Daily Mail, the
Daily Telegraph,
The Sun, the
Sunday Times and of corrections from
Michael Caine,
Sienna Miller,
Naomi Campbell,
Jonathan Powell.
On the website, we just learned that "
Cherie Blair has never met
Saif Gaddafi; that
Kate Moss doesn't have a
Facebookaccount and that
Chelsea footballers denied spending £120,000 on drinks at a party," Pritchard continues.
If any celebrity thinks that untruths about him/her has been published he/she has the right to have it corrected, even if it deals with horses in nightclubs or the amount spent on drinks. It's not a question of importance.
But, as Pritchard noted, "Sir David seemed unaware that some media have been offering this service completely free of charge for more than 40 years (indeed, in Japan the concept goes back to 1922). There are journalists working in newspapers, broadcasting and online all around the world, who, like me, act as ombudsmen, independent of the editor, listening to those who feel injured by our coverage, verifying their claims, talking to the author and, if necessary, printing a correction which is then appended to the story online. It's an attempt to make the media more transparent and, we hope, more trustworthy".
In the UK, for example, any member of the public can submit a complaint about all editorially-controlled material in UK newspapers and magazines (and their websites) to the
Press Complaint Commission.
Other
press councils in other parts of the world perform the same purpose.
The media accountability system concept - "any non-governmental means of inducing media and journalists to respect the ethical rules set by the profession" - was promoted by
Claude-Jean Bertrand, professor emeritus at the
University of Paris II and media ethicist.
And when the law rules it,
libel suits could be filed.
Truth is not something it should be necessary, or even possible, to pay for. It's the primary duty of journalism and media accountability and professional ethics exist to ensure it.
Sources:
Observer,
ICorrect,
MAS (JRI)
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario