The story behind ICorrect

Yesterday I raised some questions about new site ICorrect, asking where it fitted into the libel / media regulation picture.

For those who missed the story, a new site was launched allowing correctors, who pay $1,000 a year ($5,000 for a corporation) to set the record straight about media allegations. Numerous celebrities are among the first listed corrections.

ICorrect has since very helpfully answered my questions, and says: “If the satisfaction of posting on ICorrect were to alleviate the necessity of legal action in the courts or other statutory bodies then ICorrect must be a good thing. ICorrect should always be seen as a complementary website to others for corrections rather than as an alternative.”

It confirms that the first contributors to the site signed up voluntarily and were not paid to join. The corrections are unique to ICorrect.

  • Must ‘correctors’ be the person, or organisation, affected by the error?

On the whole yes, but not necessarily. For example, there could be corrections on other matters such as politics and science (ref. Professor Niall Ferguson’s disagreement with a fellow academic), where the issue does not concern personality, but references an economic theory.

  • Did the first ‘correctors’ pay to use the site, or were they paid to promote it? Or did you take corrections from elsewhere and use them to demonstrate the service? i.e. are the first corrections made by active users of the site?

Sir David Tang personally met and talked to each and every individual, who voluntarily joined as a founding Corrector. No payment was made to them to promote the site and each correction was posted specifically to ICorrect; corrections were not borrowed from elsewhere.

  • Do you see this type of correction as an alternative to taking legal action or making a complaint to the PCC?

It certainly provides a convenient and very useful platform for corrections, particularly given the simple format whereby the accusation is directly juxtaposed with the correction, providing an easy reference for searchers and browsers. If the satisfaction of posting on ICorrect were to alleviate the necessity of legal action in the courts or other statutory bodies then ICorrect must be a good thing. ICorrect should always be seen as a complementary website to others for corrections rather than as an alternative.

  • What would happen if someone challenged the accuracy of a correction on your site?

You can only post a correction on ICorrect if you are a registered Corrector. We genuinely believe that we must only provide the platform for corrections and not interfere with the content; it is our sacrosanct rule.

  • Is your focus the UK, or global media outlets as well?

The UK was the logical place to launch. However we are already targeting the US, Middle East, Latin America and Asia, indeed everywhere in the world as our website was specifically designed to accommodate all languages.

Please leave thoughts and comments below, thank you.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in defamation, media law, media regulation and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The story behind ICorrect

  1. Pingback: Midweek media law mop up: Defamation, defamation, defamation | media law & ethics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s