Correction

[Aimless]

I believe major corrections to newspaper articles should be required to be printed on the front page, under a heading of a similar size to that of the original article. Of course, this would temporarily transform British front-pages to a list of corrections, but it'd be a price worth paying.

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

I agree, sort of.

They should be required to be printed on the same page in the same font size and same prominence as the original.

A minor correction to a minor article on page 34 shouldn't need to be on the front page. But a correction to a front page headline should be.

[Loki]

And for every correction, how many new lies did they print? Not enough space in the newspaper and not enough resources by ipso to correct even a small portion.

[wiggin]

I agree, sort of.

They should be required to be printed on the same page in the same font size and same prominence as the original.

A minor correction to a minor article on page 34 shouldn't need to be on the front page. But a correction to a front page headline should be.

But isn't this rapidly becoming a non-issue? A large proportion of people get their news online, and articles are revised with corrections as they are available (some sites are less transparent than others, of course; BBC routinely stealth edits articles without acknowledging how awful early versions were). Does anyone really read a physical paper other than senior citizens and convicts?

[Loki]

But isn't this rapidly becoming a non-issue? A large proportion of people get their news online, and articles are revised with corrections as they are available (some sites are less transparent than others, of course; BBC routinely stealth edits articles without acknowledging how awful early versions were). Does anyone really read a physical paper other than senior citizens and convicts?

Think what the main target of the Daily Mail would be.

[wiggin]

Think what the main target of the Daily Mail would be.

Their readership has an average age of 58 (Wikifist warning) and they have a few million more website visitors a day than they have print subscriptions. Certainly an older demographic but not so removed from the internet that most of them use print versions.

[RandBlade]

But isn't this rapidly becoming a non-issue? A large proportion of people get their news online, and articles are revised with corrections as they are available (some sites are less transparent than others, of course; BBC routinely stealth edits articles without acknowledging how awful early versions were). Does anyone really read a physical paper other than senior citizens and convicts?

Yes I agree.

[Aimless]

I agree, sort of.

They should be required to be printed on the same page in the same font size and same prominence as the original.

A minor correction to a minor article on page 34 shouldn't need to be on the front page. But a correction to a front page headline should be.

That was my first idea, but such a system would be too easy to game, and not be a sufficiently strong deterrent. I also toyed with the idea of having corrections tattooed onto visible parts of the editors' bodies, but this would not be sustainable and may also be regarded as disproportional. Correcting a false belief is more difficult than establishing it in the first place, esp. once it's spread to others, so the correction should be very prominent, and induce shame.

And for every correction, how many new lies did they print? Not enough space in the newspaper and not enough resources by ipso to correct even a small portion.

They're saving £350 million a year, should be able to spend a few million on safeguarding the truth.

Important to remember that, while the print edition of the Mail has an estimated readership of something like 3 million, front-page headlines reach many, many more. In addition, although the Mail is primarily a digital "news" source, the website does indeed have a "front-page", and it's easy to mandate publishing a prominent, very visible correction on that page, as well as on all other pages (eg. in the sidebar or related articles sections).

[Flixy]

But isn't this rapidly becoming a non-issue? A large proportion of people get their news online, and articles are revised with corrections as they are available (some sites are less transparent than others, of course; BBC routinely stealth edits articles without acknowledging how awful early versions were). Does anyone really read a physical paper other than senior citizens and convicts?

Would be good if sites were also clear about updates and corrections yes.

On a side note i get the Saturday edition on paper and there's some paper editions at common areas in my work building (a local one and a financial one). Bars and cafes also often have them too.