The truth and nothing but the truth – What to do when false information circulates through the press?

(FS): Freedom of the press and the freedom of reporting through broadcasting and film are governed by Article 5(1) sentences 2 and 3, and Article 5(2) of the German Basic Law (GG), as well as by the constitutional provisions of the federal states. However, that does not mean the media may report entirely as they please.

In practice, the limits of reporting are reached where it concerns people’s personal rights and their private and intimate sphere. In addition, the media are not allowed to disseminate false facts.

If false statements of fact have already been published, you should contact the editorial team directly in order to achieve a correction of the publication.
It becomes tricky when the online editorial desk has distorted or shortened reports from their own colleagues in a “click-baiting” way. In those cases, more effort is often needed to obtain a correction.

(FS): You need a media lawyer if, despite a clear factual situation, an editorial team shows no willingness at all to accommodate. That happens, but not very often.

(FS): This is where it gets interesting. In my experience, it depends greatly on which outlet you are dealing with, what the facts of the case look like, whether research was conducted “open-endedly” and solidly, and how the journalists involved handle their duty of care. These factors determine the communication strategy and the specific approach.

(FS): Yes and no. In practice, investigative media outlets often legally protect themselves before publishing a piece. That means the outlet’s legal department checks whether the article is vulnerable to legal challenge. At this point, media lawyers often become involved and try to stop the publication or at least influence it. In my experience, “the public interest in publication” more often prevails over non-publication.

(FS): Definitely. The media’s bite reflex depends on how visible the company has been publicly, how it has handled media inquiries so far, and what its overall public perception is. That’s why professional corporate communications can serve as a kind of protective shield.

(MAK): First: stay calm and work based on facts. With AI-generated videos, the first step is always a rapid analysis—what exactly is being claimed, how widely it has spread, and who is interacting with it? After that, the source should be classified: is it an obviously manipulated deepfake, or could outsiders get the impression that it’s real?

From a communications perspective, two steps are recommended. First, clarify internally whether the content has any kernel of truth that needs to be addressed. Second, prepare a short, precise public statement that explains that it is an AI video. It’s important not to contribute to further distribution yourself.

If the spread is massive, active counter-communication via your own channels can be worthwhile: provide context, cite facts, and remain calm. In parallel, report to YouTube that the material is manipulated—the chances of removal vary, but the process is part of it. Overall, it becomes clear: transparency and the ability to respond quickly are crucial.

(MAK): First, document the account—screenshots, links, timestamps. This is important for later steps. Then report the account using the platform’s reporting functions. Even if the chances of success vary, this collects important review signals within the system.

At the same time, check whether the fake account is already causing damage. If it is spreading false claims, a brief clarification via your own channels is advisable: factual, concise, without unnecessarily promoting the fake account. Stakeholders such as customers, partners, or employees can also be informed internally so they don’t fall for the account.

If the false statements are damaging to reputation or potentially harmful to the business, you should also have the matter reviewed legally. The effort is low, and the legal assessment helps with all further steps—especially if the account reappears repeatedly.

(MAK): In short: very mixed. Reporting functions can work, but often only when the violation is clear—for example in cases of identity theft, fake profiles of public figures, or obviously manipulated content.

Our experience shows that response times fluctuate. Sometimes an account is removed within a few hours; sometimes it takes days, or nothing happens at all. That’s why it’s important to initiate several measures in parallel: report, document, and if necessary communicate clearly on your own channels—and in more serious cases, involve legal support.

Platforms are continuously improving their processes, but they primarily operate at scale and in an automated way. That means: the clearer and more unambiguous the rule violation is presented, the greater the chances that the report will be successful.