Right of Reply
Holding power to account includes letting the people named in a serious allegation speak to the record before the ink dries — and after, if the reply comes late.
When the desk must ask
If a forthcoming log entry attributes a serious allegation to a named person or institution (corruption, unlawful conduct, deception of the public on a material fact, or comparable harm), the desk offers a fair opportunity to respond before publication, unless:
- the allegation is already a matter of a public official record that itself contains the subject’s position;
- delay would make the entry meaningless (for example, a vote that will have occurred) and the entry is framed as contemporaneous record rather than as a resolved charge;
- there is a specific, documented safety reason not to provide advance notice.
“We emailed a press shop on deadline and heard nothing in eleven minutes” is not a fair opportunity. A declined interview, a written statement, and a no-comment are all publishable responses. A ignored request is noted as such, with the time allowed.
What a reply is
A reply is appended to the evidence ledger and, where it changes the meaning of the entry, to the body. It is not a veto. It is not a paid advertorial. It does not purchase a HOLD.
If a reply shows the desk was wrong, that is a correction, not a negotiation.
Crime language, again
A reply is not a substitute for a court judgment. The desk still will not state that a named person committed a crime unless a qualifying record establishes it, whether or not the subject answered the phone.
Intake on this build
There is no live channel yet. The contact form does not submit. The clock on a right-of-reply request cannot start, and the desk will not claim that it has, until this page states that intake is monitored and names the method (still without publishing a personal mailbox).
If you are preparing a statement against a future entry, keep it. When intake is marked live, send it there. Do not assume a social media mention was received.