Two examples of how the big newspapers deal with criticism and attempted corrections. It also shows the value of comment moderation in online news stories*.
1. Telegraph: Runs story about scientist. Scientist aims for right of reply and aims to correct what he sees as factual errors in the comments. Comments rejected. Scientist writes letter. Letter rejected.
2. Sun: Runs lying rubbish about British Jews being targeted by Muslim extremists. Readers attempt to correct what they see as factual errors in the comments. Comments rejected.
Essentially, these papers will allow comments which agree with what they've said, and reject ones that don't. Which is fine, I guess, so long as they don't pretend that there's actually some kind of debate going on.
* My approach to comment moderation on here is pretty straightforward: if it's not libellous, spamming, repetitive or downright pathetic, then it goes through. I'm not one of the 'hear no evil, see no evil' school of thought: I like to see what I'm looking at before it goes online under my blog. I don't mind being told I'm an idiot or that I'm wrong, or even downright abused. You can look back in the archives and see my jolly correspondence with those sages Jeff Marshall and William Gazy to see the kind of thing that I don't mind, though the latter of those chaps was unfortunately really upset when a particularly libellous comment about Inayat Bunglawala didn't get through. Well tough tits. Pre-moderation means I'm responsible for what appears on the website, not you, and therefore I have to exercise a little caution. And at the end of the day, it's my blog, not yours. The classical right-wing cunt response of "Well you ask for comments, therefore I'm allowed to be a total cock under every single one of your posts and say a load of shit that isn't true at all and is completely racist bollocks, otherwise you're a free-speech-hating motherfucker" doesn't wash with me. So fuck off.