How much prominence should online corrections and clarifications get?

The Press Complaints Commission is on Twitter. It tweets when it arranges for a correction or clarification to be made. Which lets us see how much prominence they are given when they’re published.

Today, it tweeted:

The PCC has negotiated this page 2 and online Daily Telegraph clarification after a complaint from Graham Allen MP http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7207124/Graham-Allen-MP.html

I asked whether this clarification was linked to, and it said:

Yes, there’s a link to the clarification on the Telegraph’s news homepage: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/

Oddly, if you search for Graham Allen MP on the Telegraph site, the clarification isn’t in the results (this seems a fairly major omission to me – surely these things should appear in the search results. Although poor Mr Allen also gets a “Did you mean Graham Alleyn MP”!) .

But there is indeed a link – a link that says “Graham Allen MP” (no use of the word clarification). I’ve ringed it in red to help you find it …

So not all that prominent then …

You might also like

1. Times Online top of newspaper Stumble league
2. Online news isn’t turning journalists into sheep
3. Is this the model for newspapers charging for online content?
4. Google’s results for MPs’ expenses are rubbish
5. Google and Apple eat each others spelling corrections

1. Leave a comment!

   Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

   Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

    Name (required)

    Mail (will not be published) (required)

    Website (optional)

   You can use these tags:
   <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>