Who may demand a counter-report, and does the demand depend on the media company's fault or on the report being false?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In the practice file, we read the published report itself, to see whether it states a factual claim rather than opinion, anything showing the claimant suffered harm, and the written demand sent to the media company, which fixes who made it against whom.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes paragraph one at full width: a person who has been harmed by a news report or similar item that concerns a factual claim may demand a counter-report on the content of that report from the media company, and paragraph two removes any further hurdle, for the demand needs no intent, negligence or unlawfulness on the media company's side and may be made whether or not the report's content is true.
Another reading marks the boundary the provision leaves in place: it governs reports of factual claims, so a passage that carries only opinion or evaluation may fall outside what paragraph one reaches, while paragraph three sends the claimant to the provisions on demands for a correction report wherever this provision has nothing of its own to say.
Your judgment
If the disputed passage mixes a factual assertion with a comment, how could the file show that the factual claim is what caused the harm?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the Act is amended to define what counts as a factual claim or as harm, or if a court decision sets the boundary between factual claims and opinion for this claim.