It would be nice if a correction would occur, but it won't in my experience.
In one example, I testified at a public hearing regarding a quarry and their plans to deepen the quarry by 50%, and the requested increase in discharge from 140,000 gallons per day to 5 million gallons per day, and the expected impact upon residential wells which were already failing. The subsequent newspaper article stated that there were no plans to deepen the quarry. Not to worry. When I called the reporter the same day, he refused to print a correction, even though his article amounted to a massive public deception.
In another example, the Owner/Publisher of a different paper wrote an article about about a proposed drainage project with the statement that if would cost about $10 per property parcel. Since my own property assessment would have been around $1200 and I would receive no benefit from the project, I called and spoke with the publisher about his article and the "impression" it would give the average reader. I explained to him about how the assessments would actually be arrived at. His response: "Yes, I know. It doesn't matter." No correction.
A couple of years ago, Sierra Club was hosting a segment on PBS. I contacted a relative to be sure and watch this interesting show. The response: "The Sierra Club is a bunch of terrorists. I won't watch this show". This was at the time when bills were active in the Texas, Pennsylvania and New York legislatures that would have made it a crime to support an association such as Sierra Club.
No. What will stick in people's minds with this present article was that "the environmentalist threatened to blow up a dam", just as it was reported in the "free press". All the news we choose to censor.