WHEN THE MEDIA GETS IT WRONG
WHEN THE MEDIA GETS IT WRONG
Correcting Inaccurate Reporting During Litigation
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
When a client is involved in litigation, unfavorable media coverage can be difficult to read. Allegations may appear prominently in a headline, complicated facts may be condensed into a few paragraphs, and the opposing side's position may receive significant attention while the defense is limited in what it can responsibly say. For defense attorneys and their clients, there is often an immediate desire to challenge coverage that feels incomplete or unfair.
But unfavorable reporting and inaccurate reporting are not the same thing.
That distinction is one of the most important considerations in litigation communications and legal media strategy. A journalist can write a story that is damaging to a client's reputation while accurately reporting allegations contained in an indictment, complaint, court filing or public statement. The fact that the client strongly disputes those allegations does not necessarily make the reporting factually incorrect.
There are other situations, however, where coverage contains a clear and material error. A charge may be reported incorrectly. A court ruling may be mischaracterized. Conduct may be attributed to the wrong person. An allegation may be presented as an established fact rather than an allegation. An outdated story may fail to reflect a significant subsequent development in the case.
Those situations require a different analysis. When inaccurate information has the potential to affect a client's reputation, business or future opportunities, defense counsel and communications advisors should consider whether—and how—to correct the public record.
START BY IDENTIFYING WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRONG
The first step in evaluating inaccurate media coverage is separating factual errors from disagreements over framing, emphasis or tone.
This can be harder than it sounds, particularly when the client is understandably upset by the coverage. A headline may feel sensational. A story may emphasize damaging allegations while devoting only a few sentences to the defense. A reporter may choose language the client would never use to describe the situation. None of those issues automatically means the article contains a factual error.
A correction request is strongest when it can identify a specific statement that is demonstrably incorrect and provide reliable information establishing the correct fact.
For example, if a story says the client was charged with five offenses when the charging document lists three, that is a factual issue. If a report states that a court denied a motion when the court actually deferred ruling on it, that may warrant clarification. If a story attributes a statement or action to the client that belongs to another person, the error can be specifically identified and documented.
Approaching media corrections during litigation with this level of precision is far more effective than sending a broad complaint that the article was unfair.
NOT EVERY ERROR REQUIRES A CORRECTION REQUEST
Even when something is technically incorrect, counsel should consider whether pursuing a correction serves the client's broader interests.
The significance of the error matters. So does the reach of the publication, the visibility of the article and the likelihood that the inaccurate information will be repeated elsewhere. A minor mistake in an article receiving little attention may not justify creating additional engagement with the reporter. A significant factual error appearing in a highly visible story or being repeated across multiple outlets presents a different communications problem.
This is where media monitoring during litigation becomes valuable. The legal and communications teams can evaluate whether an inaccurate statement is isolated or beginning to spread. Information that appears in one report can quickly be repeated by other publications, newsletters, television segments, social media accounts and online summaries, particularly when subsequent journalists rely on earlier coverage for background.
Once an incorrect fact is repeated enough times, correcting it becomes substantially more difficult.
The decision to seek a correction should therefore consider not only the original error but also its potential to become part of the established public narrative surrounding the case.
CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE FACTUAL, PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIFIC
An angry email is rarely an effective media strategy.
When a correction is warranted, the communication with the reporter or editor should be concise, professional and focused on the specific factual issue. Identify the statement in question, explain why it is inaccurate and provide the correct information. When appropriate and legally permissible, supporting documentation can make the request substantially stronger.
The objective should be accuracy rather than punishment.
Journalists make mistakes for many reasons. Legal matters can be complicated, court documents can be difficult to interpret and reporters frequently work under significant deadline pressure. Beginning from the assumption that every error was intentional can turn a potentially straightforward correction into an unnecessary confrontation.
That does not mean defense counsel or communications advisors should hesitate to be firm when an important fact is wrong. It means the request should be based on evidence and presented in a way that gives the publication a clear opportunity to correct the record.
Credibility matters in media relations for attorneys and their clients. A communications advisor who contacts a reporter only when a meaningful factual issue exists is more likely to be taken seriously when an important correction is necessary.
BE CAREFUL NOT TO TURN A CORRECTION INTO A SECOND STORY
Correcting inaccurate reporting requires the same strategic judgment as any other form of litigation communications. The team should consider whether the proposed response will fix the problem or unintentionally expand it.
A narrowly written correction request can often remain a straightforward interaction between the communications advisor and the journalist. A lengthy public statement accusing a news organization of misconduct is something entirely different. It can become a new development, generate additional coverage and shift attention from the original legal matter to a public dispute with the press.
There may be unusual circumstances where a public response to reporting is appropriate, but that should be a deliberate decision rather than an emotional reaction.
The first objective should generally be to correct the inaccurate information as efficiently as possible.
This is particularly important during active litigation, when every public statement should be considered within the larger legal strategy.
HEADLINES DESERVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION
Many people will never read beyond a headline.
That reality makes headline inaccuracies especially significant. An article itself may carefully attribute allegations to prosecutors, plaintiffs or another party while the headline presents a much more definitive characterization. Because headlines are frequently what appear in search results, social media posts and news aggregators, an inaccurate headline can create a lasting impression even when the body of the article is more nuanced.
Defense counsel and communications advisors should therefore evaluate both the article and the way it is being presented.
If the headline materially misstates the facts, a correction request may be appropriate even when the underlying article contains more accurate language.
The same principle applies to captions, social media posts published by the news organization and other promotional language associated with the story. In today's media environment, those elements can reach more people than the full article itself.
ATTRIBUTION MATTERS IN LEGAL REPORTING
One of the most consequential distinctions in reporting on litigation is the difference between an allegation and an established fact.
A complaint alleges. An indictment charges. A prosecutor asserts. A plaintiff claims. The existence of those allegations is itself a fact, but the underlying conduct may remain disputed.
Most experienced legal reporters understand this distinction, but mistakes in attribution can still occur, particularly as stories are summarized, rewritten or repeated by other outlets.
If an allegation is presented as though it has already been proven, the resulting coverage can significantly change how readers understand the matter. Depending on the circumstances, that may warrant engagement.
This is another reason why litigation PR and legal media advisory should involve careful monitoring rather than simply counting positive and negative stories. The details of how information is characterized can matter more than the overall tone of the article.
ONLINE REPORTING CAN OUTLAST THE LEGAL MATTER
A newspaper once disappeared from the public's daily view relatively quickly. Online reporting does not.
An article published during the earliest stage of a legal matter may continue appearing prominently in search results years later. Someone researching an executive, professional or company may encounter that original article without ever seeing subsequent developments in the case.
This creates a particular challenge when early reporting contained inaccurate information or when the legal matter ultimately ended very differently from what the original coverage suggested.
For that reason, reputation management during and after litigation should include attention to the long-term public record. When an article has been corrected, counsel and communications advisors should verify that the online version reflects the correction. When a significant resolution occurs later, there may be circumstances where journalists who covered the original matter should receive accurate information about the outcome.
The goal is not to erase legitimate reporting or rewrite the history of the case. It is to help ensure that people searching for information encounter a record that is as complete and accurate as reasonably possible.
WHAT IF THE REPORTER WILL NOT CORRECT THE STORY?
Not every correction request will succeed.
A reporter may disagree that the information is inaccurate. An editor may determine that the existing language is sufficiently supported. The disagreement may concern interpretation rather than an objectively incorrect fact.
When that happens, the legal and communications teams should evaluate the significance of the issue before escalating.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to provide additional documentation, contact an editor or standards representative or request that the publication add clarification. In other cases, continuing the dispute may provide little benefit and create additional attention.
The same principle applies here as throughout litigation communications: the objective is not to win an argument with a journalist. The objective is to protect the client's broader interests.
Sometimes escalation serves that objective. Sometimes it does not.
BUILD CREDIBILITY BEFORE YOU NEED TO USE IT
Relationships with journalists matter even during difficult coverage.
Communications counsel should not expect reporters to write favorable stories because a relationship exists, nor should a journalist's independence ever be treated as something to overcome. What a professional relationship can create is credibility.
If communications counsel consistently provides accurate information, responds professionally, respects deadlines and avoids challenging legitimate reporting simply because it is negative, reporters learn that when the advisor says something is factually wrong, it deserves attention.
That credibility becomes particularly valuable during high-profile litigation, when circumstances can change quickly and reporters may be receiving information from numerous competing sources.
Effective legal public relations is not about manipulating coverage. It is about ensuring journalists have access to accurate information when providing that information is appropriate and consistent with legal strategy.
DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE A PROCESS FOR MEDIA ERRORS
The worst time to determine how the team will handle inaccurate reporting is after a significant error has already begun spreading.
For matters likely to attract sustained media attention, defense counsel and communications counsel should establish a process in advance. Coverage should be monitored. Potential inaccuracies should be documented. Legal counsel should determine what information can appropriately be provided publicly, and communications counsel should understand who has authority to approve contact with a reporter or publication.
This structure allows the team to move quickly when an important correction is necessary without reacting impulsively to every unfavorable headline.
It also helps maintain consistency. One attorney should not be demanding a correction while another member of the team is simultaneously telling a reporter that the firm has no comment.
A clear communications protocol protects both the client and the legal strategy.
ACCURACY IS THE OBJECTIVE
Media coverage surrounding litigation will not always tell the story exactly as a client would tell it. That is an unavoidable reality of an independent press and an adversarial legal system.
The goal of litigation communications should not be to eliminate unfavorable reporting. It should be to understand the media environment, identify inaccuracies that genuinely matter and respond strategically when correcting the public record serves the client's interests.
For defense attorneys, the distinction between negative coverage and inaccurate coverage is critical. Challenging every unfavorable article can damage credibility and generate unnecessary attention. Allowing significant factual errors to spread unchecked can create long-term reputational consequences of its own.
The strongest approach lies between those extremes: monitor carefully, evaluate objectively, correct precisely and always consider the legal and reputational implications before responding.
When the media gets something wrong, the goal is not to create a fight.
The goal is to get the facts right.
ABOUT ANDREA KHOURY
Andrea Khoury is Founder & Principal of Khoury Public Relations & Media Group and a strategic communications and reputation advisor. She works with defense attorneys, law firms, executives, companies and their clients on litigation communications, legal media strategy, crisis communications, reputation management and other high-stakes matters involving significant public attention.
Khoury Public Relations & Media Group provides litigation communications, legal PR, crisis communications, media relations and reputation advisory services to defense attorneys and their clients nationwide. Andrea works directly with legal counsel to monitor reporting, evaluate media inquiries, address material inaccuracies, prepare clients and develop communications strategies that respect the legal process and support the direction of counsel.
For confidential litigation communications inquiries:
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
Correcting Inaccurate Reporting During Litigation
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]
When a client is involved in litigation, unfavorable media coverage can be difficult to read. Allegations may appear prominently in a headline, complicated facts may be condensed into a few paragraphs, and the opposing side's position may receive significant attention while the defense is limited in what it can responsibly say. For defense attorneys and their clients, there is often an immediate desire to challenge coverage that feels incomplete or unfair.
But unfavorable reporting and inaccurate reporting are not the same thing.
That distinction is one of the most important considerations in litigation communications and legal media strategy. A journalist can write a story that is damaging to a client's reputation while accurately reporting allegations contained in an indictment, complaint, court filing or public statement. The fact that the client strongly disputes those allegations does not necessarily make the reporting factually incorrect.
There are other situations, however, where coverage contains a clear and material error. A charge may be reported incorrectly. A court ruling may be mischaracterized. Conduct may be attributed to the wrong person. An allegation may be presented as an established fact rather than an allegation. An outdated story may fail to reflect a significant subsequent development in the case.
Those situations require a different analysis. When inaccurate information has the potential to affect a client's reputation, business or future opportunities, defense counsel and communications advisors should consider whether—and how—to correct the public record.
START BY IDENTIFYING WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRONG
The first step in evaluating inaccurate media coverage is separating factual errors from disagreements over framing, emphasis or tone.
This can be harder than it sounds, particularly when the client is understandably upset by the coverage. A headline may feel sensational. A story may emphasize damaging allegations while devoting only a few sentences to the defense. A reporter may choose language the client would never use to describe the situation. None of those issues automatically means the article contains a factual error.
A correction request is strongest when it can identify a specific statement that is demonstrably incorrect and provide reliable information establishing the correct fact.
For example, if a story says the client was charged with five offenses when the charging document lists three, that is a factual issue. If a report states that a court denied a motion when the court actually deferred ruling on it, that may warrant clarification. If a story attributes a statement or action to the client that belongs to another person, the error can be specifically identified and documented.
Approaching media corrections during litigation with this level of precision is far more effective than sending a broad complaint that the article was unfair.
NOT EVERY ERROR REQUIRES A CORRECTION REQUEST
Even when something is technically incorrect, counsel should consider whether pursuing a correction serves the client's broader interests.
The significance of the error matters. So does the reach of the publication, the visibility of the article and the likelihood that the inaccurate information will be repeated elsewhere. A minor mistake in an article receiving little attention may not justify creating additional engagement with the reporter. A significant factual error appearing in a highly visible story or being repeated across multiple outlets presents a different communications problem.
This is where media monitoring during litigation becomes valuable. The legal and communications teams can evaluate whether an inaccurate statement is isolated or beginning to spread. Information that appears in one report can quickly be repeated by other publications, newsletters, television segments, social media accounts and online summaries, particularly when subsequent journalists rely on earlier coverage for background.
Once an incorrect fact is repeated enough times, correcting it becomes substantially more difficult.
The decision to seek a correction should therefore consider not only the original error but also its potential to become part of the established public narrative surrounding the case.
CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE FACTUAL, PROFESSIONAL AND SPECIFIC
An angry email is rarely an effective media strategy.
When a correction is warranted, the communication with the reporter or editor should be concise, professional and focused on the specific factual issue. Identify the statement in question, explain why it is inaccurate and provide the correct information. When appropriate and legally permissible, supporting documentation can make the request substantially stronger.
The objective should be accuracy rather than punishment.
Journalists make mistakes for many reasons. Legal matters can be complicated, court documents can be difficult to interpret and reporters frequently work under significant deadline pressure. Beginning from the assumption that every error was intentional can turn a potentially straightforward correction into an unnecessary confrontation.
That does not mean defense counsel or communications advisors should hesitate to be firm when an important fact is wrong. It means the request should be based on evidence and presented in a way that gives the publication a clear opportunity to correct the record.
Credibility matters in media relations for attorneys and their clients. A communications advisor who contacts a reporter only when a meaningful factual issue exists is more likely to be taken seriously when an important correction is necessary.
BE CAREFUL NOT TO TURN A CORRECTION INTO A SECOND STORY
Correcting inaccurate reporting requires the same strategic judgment as any other form of litigation communications. The team should consider whether the proposed response will fix the problem or unintentionally expand it.
A narrowly written correction request can often remain a straightforward interaction between the communications advisor and the journalist. A lengthy public statement accusing a news organization of misconduct is something entirely different. It can become a new development, generate additional coverage and shift attention from the original legal matter to a public dispute with the press.
There may be unusual circumstances where a public response to reporting is appropriate, but that should be a deliberate decision rather than an emotional reaction.
The first objective should generally be to correct the inaccurate information as efficiently as possible.
This is particularly important during active litigation, when every public statement should be considered within the larger legal strategy.
HEADLINES DESERVE PARTICULAR ATTENTION
Many people will never read beyond a headline.
That reality makes headline inaccuracies especially significant. An article itself may carefully attribute allegations to prosecutors, plaintiffs or another party while the headline presents a much more definitive characterization. Because headlines are frequently what appear in search results, social media posts and news aggregators, an inaccurate headline can create a lasting impression even when the body of the article is more nuanced.
Defense counsel and communications advisors should therefore evaluate both the article and the way it is being presented.
If the headline materially misstates the facts, a correction request may be appropriate even when the underlying article contains more accurate language.
The same principle applies to captions, social media posts published by the news organization and other promotional language associated with the story. In today's media environment, those elements can reach more people than the full article itself.
ATTRIBUTION MATTERS IN LEGAL REPORTING
One of the most consequential distinctions in reporting on litigation is the difference between an allegation and an established fact.
A complaint alleges. An indictment charges. A prosecutor asserts. A plaintiff claims. The existence of those allegations is itself a fact, but the underlying conduct may remain disputed.
Most experienced legal reporters understand this distinction, but mistakes in attribution can still occur, particularly as stories are summarized, rewritten or repeated by other outlets.
If an allegation is presented as though it has already been proven, the resulting coverage can significantly change how readers understand the matter. Depending on the circumstances, that may warrant engagement.
This is another reason why litigation PR and legal media advisory should involve careful monitoring rather than simply counting positive and negative stories. The details of how information is characterized can matter more than the overall tone of the article.
ONLINE REPORTING CAN OUTLAST THE LEGAL MATTER
A newspaper once disappeared from the public's daily view relatively quickly. Online reporting does not.
An article published during the earliest stage of a legal matter may continue appearing prominently in search results years later. Someone researching an executive, professional or company may encounter that original article without ever seeing subsequent developments in the case.
This creates a particular challenge when early reporting contained inaccurate information or when the legal matter ultimately ended very differently from what the original coverage suggested.
For that reason, reputation management during and after litigation should include attention to the long-term public record. When an article has been corrected, counsel and communications advisors should verify that the online version reflects the correction. When a significant resolution occurs later, there may be circumstances where journalists who covered the original matter should receive accurate information about the outcome.
The goal is not to erase legitimate reporting or rewrite the history of the case. It is to help ensure that people searching for information encounter a record that is as complete and accurate as reasonably possible.
WHAT IF THE REPORTER WILL NOT CORRECT THE STORY?
Not every correction request will succeed.
A reporter may disagree that the information is inaccurate. An editor may determine that the existing language is sufficiently supported. The disagreement may concern interpretation rather than an objectively incorrect fact.
When that happens, the legal and communications teams should evaluate the significance of the issue before escalating.
Depending on the circumstances, it may be appropriate to provide additional documentation, contact an editor or standards representative or request that the publication add clarification. In other cases, continuing the dispute may provide little benefit and create additional attention.
The same principle applies here as throughout litigation communications: the objective is not to win an argument with a journalist. The objective is to protect the client's broader interests.
Sometimes escalation serves that objective. Sometimes it does not.
BUILD CREDIBILITY BEFORE YOU NEED TO USE IT
Relationships with journalists matter even during difficult coverage.
Communications counsel should not expect reporters to write favorable stories because a relationship exists, nor should a journalist's independence ever be treated as something to overcome. What a professional relationship can create is credibility.
If communications counsel consistently provides accurate information, responds professionally, respects deadlines and avoids challenging legitimate reporting simply because it is negative, reporters learn that when the advisor says something is factually wrong, it deserves attention.
That credibility becomes particularly valuable during high-profile litigation, when circumstances can change quickly and reporters may be receiving information from numerous competing sources.
Effective legal public relations is not about manipulating coverage. It is about ensuring journalists have access to accurate information when providing that information is appropriate and consistent with legal strategy.
DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE A PROCESS FOR MEDIA ERRORS
The worst time to determine how the team will handle inaccurate reporting is after a significant error has already begun spreading.
For matters likely to attract sustained media attention, defense counsel and communications counsel should establish a process in advance. Coverage should be monitored. Potential inaccuracies should be documented. Legal counsel should determine what information can appropriately be provided publicly, and communications counsel should understand who has authority to approve contact with a reporter or publication.
This structure allows the team to move quickly when an important correction is necessary without reacting impulsively to every unfavorable headline.
It also helps maintain consistency. One attorney should not be demanding a correction while another member of the team is simultaneously telling a reporter that the firm has no comment.
A clear communications protocol protects both the client and the legal strategy.
ACCURACY IS THE OBJECTIVE
Media coverage surrounding litigation will not always tell the story exactly as a client would tell it. That is an unavoidable reality of an independent press and an adversarial legal system.
The goal of litigation communications should not be to eliminate unfavorable reporting. It should be to understand the media environment, identify inaccuracies that genuinely matter and respond strategically when correcting the public record serves the client's interests.
For defense attorneys, the distinction between negative coverage and inaccurate coverage is critical. Challenging every unfavorable article can damage credibility and generate unnecessary attention. Allowing significant factual errors to spread unchecked can create long-term reputational consequences of its own.
The strongest approach lies between those extremes: monitor carefully, evaluate objectively, correct precisely and always consider the legal and reputational implications before responding.
When the media gets something wrong, the goal is not to create a fight.
The goal is to get the facts right.
ABOUT ANDREA KHOURY
Andrea Khoury is Founder & Principal of Khoury Public Relations & Media Group and a strategic communications and reputation advisor. She works with defense attorneys, law firms, executives, companies and their clients on litigation communications, legal media strategy, crisis communications, reputation management and other high-stakes matters involving significant public attention.
Khoury Public Relations & Media Group provides litigation communications, legal PR, crisis communications, media relations and reputation advisory services to defense attorneys and their clients nationwide. Andrea works directly with legal counsel to monitor reporting, evaluate media inquiries, address material inaccuracies, prepare clients and develop communications strategies that respect the legal process and support the direction of counsel.
For confidential litigation communications inquiries:
By Andrea Khoury | Founder & Principal, Khoury Public Relations & Media Group
Strategic Communications + Reputation Advisory | Serving Clients Nationwide
[SEND AN EMAIL] | [CONNECT ON LINKEDIN] | [START A CONVERSATION]