Solutions · Protect
News and media fact-verification
When a report or video gets the facts wrong about you, the strongest response is specific, documented and polite: the exact statement, the evidence that contradicts it, and a clear request for a correction, clarification or right of reply.
Updated By Drive Digital Editorial
See which articles and videos mention you
Editorial independence respected · No requests to reveal sources · Publishers decide; Spy Monk records the outcome
Direct answer
How does Spy Monk help with a news article or video that contains false statements about me?
Spy Monk lets you open a news or video case, record each disputed statement with its timestamp or paragraph, attach fingerprinted evidence, and prepare a correction or right-of-reply request using a tested template. Your team approves it before it is sent through the publisher's own channel, and the case tracks the response. Publishers decide independently; no correction is promised.
- Case types: news article and video, each with a disputed-statement list
- Publisher requests need an approval record before they are marked sent
- Press Council norms expect corrections to be published promptly and with due prominence
- Automatic transcription and claim extraction are pending feasibility
What it does
Turning an argument into a verifiable request
Most correction requests fail for a simple reason: they are too broad. "Your article is biased and defamatory, take it down" gives an editor nothing to act on and much to resist. A request that says paragraph four states X; the attached registration certificate shows Y; we ask for a correction and are available for comment is a different conversation. It respects the publisher's independence while making the error impossible to ignore.
DRS is built around that discipline. A news article or video that surfaces in your audit or monitoring — or one you add by URL — becomes a case. You record each disputed statement separately, with the paragraph or the video timestamp, and attach the document that contradicts it: a court order, a licence, a dated invoice, an official letter. Every file is fingerprinted with SHA-256 and dated, so you can later show that the evidence existed and was not altered. The request itself is drafted from a template that lists the specific statements, the verifiable discrepancies and what you are asking for — a correction, a clarification, an update, or the publication of your response — and that explicitly does not ask the journalist to reveal confidential sources.
Nothing is marked as sent until an authorised member of your team records an approval. You then send the request through the publisher's own correction or grievance channel — most Indian publishers and broadcasters publish one — and log the response, or the silence, in the case timeline. The outcome is recorded as it is: corrected, clarified, response published, no change, or no reply. Silence is noted, not treated as proof that the report was false.
What you get
Inside a media case
- Available now
News and video cases
Dedicated case types with a disputed-statement list: paragraph or timestamp, the claim as published, and the fact you say contradicts it.
- Available now
Fingerprinted evidence and timeline
Documents, screenshots and HTML snapshots stored with SHA-256 hashes; every request, reply and follow-up dated in one timeline.
- Available now
Correction and right-of-reply templates
The publisher fact-check template (CNT-004) in English and Hindi: specific statements, verifiable discrepancies, the request, a response channel, and an explicit statement that sources are not sought.
- Available now
Approval before sending
A publisher request is a consequential external action. It needs an approval record from an admin or owner before the case moves to Submitted.
- Available now
Video results in audits
YouTube results are included in audits and monitoring where the video provider is enabled for the deployment; the coverage table says when it was not.
- Pending feasibility
Transcription, claim extraction and editorial-contact discovery
Automatic video transcription, AI claim-by-claim assessment and discovery of a publication's editorial contacts are roadmap items (SRS §8, Phase 3) that depend on provider permissions.
What it cannot do
The limits, stated plainly
- It cannot force a correction. Publishers and broadcasters make editorial decisions independently. A publisher may correct, clarify, update, publish your response, or decline. Spy Monk records the decision; it cannot change it.
- It is not for suppressing accurate reporting or opinion. Fair comment, criticism and reporting you simply dislike are protected and legitimate. Spy Monk is for factual errors you can document.
- It does not treat silence as an admission. A publisher that does not respond has not conceded anything. The product records non-response as a fact in the timeline, nothing more.
- It does not contact publishers for you. In the current version you send the approved request through the publisher's own channel and record the outcome in Spy Monk.
- It does not transcribe videos or extract claims automatically yet. You identify the exact statement and timestamp; that precision is also what makes the request credible.
- It is not a legal assessment. Whether a report amounts to defamation is a question for a qualified professional and a court, not for Spy Monk or its AI.
How it works
From a headline to a recorded outcome
Find the report
Audits and monitoring surface news articles and, where the provider is enabled, videos about your entity. You can also paste any public article or video URL.
What you seeWhat you see: a mention with publisher, date, excerpt and an AI-estimated sentiment and risk level.
Isolate the disputed statements
Open a news or video case and list each statement you dispute with its paragraph or timestamp. Keep opinion out of the list; include only facts you can contradict with documents.
What you seeWhat you see: a numbered list of claims, each with a status.
Attach the evidence
Upload the documents that contradict each statement. Spy Monk fingerprints and dates them. Write a one-line note on what each document shows.
What you seeWhat you see: evidence items with SHA-256 hashes linked to the claims they answer.
Draft, approve, send
Generate the request from the template, edit it, and record an approval. Send it through the publisher's correction or grievance channel and mark the case Submitted.
What you seeWhat you see: the approval record, the sent date and the channel used.
Track the response and escalate if appropriate
Log the reply, the correction, the published response, or the silence. If a member publication does not respond, the Press Council of India (print) or the NBDSA (member broadcasters) have formal complaint routes with their own timelines; serious matters may warrant legal escalation after professional review.
What you seeWhat you see: Awaiting response → Resolved / Rejected / Escalated → Outcome verified → Closed.
Who it is for
Who needs a documented correction route
Public figures and creators
People whose name appears in reporting and who need to answer specific errors without a public fight.
Corporate brands and products
Companies facing product or safety claims that need a precise, evidence-led response.
NGOs and institutions
Organisations whose funding and public trust depend on accurate reporting of their work.
Schools, colleges and coaching
Institutions reported on during admissions, results or incidents on campus.
Doctors and clinics
Practitioners named in health reporting who must respond within professional-conduct rules.
Lawyers, CAs and professionals
Professionals whose publicity is restricted and who need a measured, documented reply.
What you need to provide
What a credible request needs
- The exact statement. The paragraph, the sentence, or the video timestamp — not a general impression of unfairness.
- The contradicting document. Something a stranger would accept: a certificate, an order, a filing, a dated record. Opinion against opinion is not a correction request.
- What you are asking for. A correction, a clarification, an update, or the publication of your response. Ask for one thing clearly.
- A response channel. An email address and a named person the editor can reach.
- Restraint. No demands to delete the whole piece, no threats, no requests to reveal sources. The Press Council's norms expect publishers to carry a reply founded on documentary evidence — give them one.
- Authorisation. You must be the person, or authorised to act for the organisation, that the report concerns.
Availability
Feature status, matched to the Phase 1 scope
- News and video case types with disputed-statement listsAvailable now
- Evidence with SHA-256 fingerprints; dated timelineAvailable now
- Publisher fact-check / right-of-reply template (English and Hindi)Available nowYou send it through the publisher's channel
- Approval gate for publisher requests; audit logAvailable now
- News discovery in audits and monitoringAvailable now
- YouTube results in audits and monitoringAvailable nowWhere the video provider is enabled
- Follow-up reminders (template CNT-005)Available nowSent by you; scheduled reminders are a Phase 2 automation item
- Video transcription and AI claim extractionPending feasibilitySRS §8; depends on provider permissions
- Editorial-contact discoveryPending feasibility
- Independent advocate escalationPending feasibilityPhase 4; subject to professional rules
- Available now
- Available now7 items
- Pending feasibility
- Pending feasibility3 items
Questions
Fact-verification — frequently asked
What should a correction request include?
The link, the exact statement or timestamp, why it is factually wrong, the evidence that shows this, and what you are asking for — a correction, a clarification, an update or the chance to respond. Keep it short, specific and courteous, and give a response channel. The right-of-reply guide includes a worked example.
Will the publisher have to remove the article?
No. A publisher may correct, clarify, update, publish your response, or make no change. Removal of an entire article is rare and is an editorial decision. Spy Monk records whichever outcome occurs; it cannot promise one.
Does Spy Monk contact the publisher for me?
Not in the current version. You send the approved request through the publisher's own correction or grievance channel, and Spy Monk keeps the record, the evidence and the timeline. Automatic discovery of editorial contacts is pending feasibility.
What if the publisher does not reply?
Spy Monk records the non-response as a fact in the timeline; it does not treat silence as an admission. For print and digital news members, the Press Council of India accepts complaints; for member news broadcasters, the NBDSA runs a two-tier process that starts with a complaint to the broadcaster within 15 days of the broadcast. Where the matter is serious, a qualified professional can advise on legal escalation.
Can I use this for an opinion piece I disagree with?
No. Opinion, criticism and fair comment are legitimate even when they are uncomfortable. The fact-verification case is for statements of fact you can contradict with documents. If a piece mixes fact and opinion, dispute only the facts.
Does Spy Monk transcribe videos and find the false statements?
Not yet. You identify the exact statement and timestamp yourself. Automatic transcription and claim-by-claim assessment are on the roadmap but depend on provider permissions, so they are marked pending feasibility rather than promised.
Is a correction request a legal notice?
No. It is an ordinary editorial request, and the template is written to be courteous and non-threatening. A legal notice is a different instrument that should be drafted and sent by a qualified professional; see Legal escalation and advocates.
Dispute the facts, not the journalist
A free audit shows which articles and videos currently mention you. Open a case for the ones that get the facts wrong.
No card needed