We don't need the Grauniad to refute stuff in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail will print a full page front page, and then retract it in a tiny correction six months later on page 12.

From New Statesman

http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe...

> In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor.

> This year, [2014] the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.

Here's another example: A columnist accused a muslim family of being extremists. That was libel. She tweeted her apology at 2am.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/katie-hopkins-twitt...

I think the apology for incorrect claims should take as much space as the original claim. If you print a 92point headline on the front page that's libellous you should print the apology in 92 point on the front page.

EDIT: And about libel in England. You need to be able to prove what you say is true. In the context of "false news" that doesn't seem to burdensome for newspapers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

> Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.