The request for a report on a corrected statement is a right for a person who suffered from a false press report to require the relevant press organization to admit the falsity of the report and to carry or broadcast a corrected report on the basis of truth. However, if the requested remedy for damage is provided not through a report on a corrected statement based on truth, but only through a report on a contradictory statement, that is, a report on the claimant’s statement made in contradiction to the original contents, irrespective of whether or not the original contents are true, satisfaction of the claimant will be decreased and a problem will arise in the effectiveness of the request. Therefore, this study raises a question about the fact that in most cases, the remedy for damage is provided through a report on a contradictory statement, rather than through a report on a corrected statement, and looks at what differences and characteristics the result of the remedy has in each case.
This study compared and analyzed 100 cases of remedies provided through a report on a corrected or contradictory statement selected from applications for the submission of a request on a corrected statement to mediation from July 28, 2005 to the end of December 2006.
The study analyzed whether the method and contents of an application affect the result of the remedy (a report on a corrected statement or a report on a contradictory statement). It found out that the rate of reporting a corrected statement was high when the claimant requested compensation for damage along with the request for a report on a corrected statement, when the claimant him/herself participated in the mediation hearing, when the part of the contents that the claimant took issue with was a factual allegation, and when the respondent admitted the falsity of the report. With regard to causes of a false report, the rate of reporting a corrected statement was high when the fact-finding was not thoroughly conducted or the information was intentionally distorted, and when mistakes of a reporter or the desk caused the falsity of the report. On the other hand, the rate of reporting a contradictory statement was high when the claimant did not request compensation for damage along with the request for a report on a corrected statement, when a proxy of the claimant, not the claimant him/herself, participated in the mediation hearing, when all or some of the part of the contents that the claimant took issue with was an opinion, when the respondent denied or only partially admitted the falsity of the report, and when the argument for a false report was based on subjective interpretation.
In conclusion, the more committed the claimant is to a report on a corrected statement, the higher the rate of reporting a corrected statement is, and the bigger and more immediate the material and mental damage is, the more likely the claimant is to request compensation for damage along with the request for a report on a corrected statement. In particular, when the relevant press organization violated the right to privacy, portrait, and name, it must compensate for damage as well as report a corrected statement. Also, since the subject of the request for a report on a corrected statement is a factual allegation, a remedy through a report on a corrected statement is hard to be provided when the part of the contents the claimant takes issue with is an opinion.
In the meantime, the rate of reporting a corrected statement was 93% when the respondent admitted the falsity of the report, while the rate of reporting a contradictory statement was 100% when it denied. That clearly shows that whether the respondent admits or not has a great impact on the result of the remedy. Therefore, the study identified factors related to whether or not the respondent admits the falsity of the report, and analyzed what impact those factors have on admission or denial of the respondent.
The result showed that the respondent admitted the falsity and reported the corrected statement when the claimant proved the falsity of a specific fact, when the fact-finding was not thoroughly conducted, when the information was intentionally distorted, and when mistakes of a reporter or the desk caused the falsity of the report, because the wrongdoings of the respondent are clearly revealed in these cases. On the other hand, the respondent denied the falsity and did no more than report the contradictory statement when the truth of the original report was not, or cannot be, proved, and when positions of each party were conflicting due to subjective interpretation of an opinion, because the wrongdoings of the respondent are not clearly revealed in these cases.
In conclusion, the falsity of the original report must be proved by the claimant because a report on a corrected statement has a precondition that a factual allegation is false. When the claimant fortunately proves the falsity with relevant data, a remedy through a report on a corrected statement will be provided. In reality, however, it is difficult to prove the falsity, and many claimants who are not familiar with legal procedures do not know how to prove or how important it is to prove. In that case, the rate of reporting a corrected statement seems to fall. When the press organizations’view on reporting a corrected statement is negative and when the victims are not eager to exercise their rights, it is likely that the remedy will be provided through a report on a contradictory statement, not through a report on a corrected statement. Therefore, proving the falsity of a specific fact seems to be the best way to boost the rate of reporting a corrected statement, as long as the press organization did not make a decisive mistake.