How to remove negative newspaper articles from the internet and Google search results ? For anyone who has received damaging or intrusive press or social media coverage, search results can be a serious issue.
From potential employers or clients to journalists and new acquaintances, most people looking for information about another person will start with a Google search. If the first page of online search results produces a torrent of negative information about you, the reputational impact
of this can be difficult to overcome. It is not only individuals who
are affected by this problem.
Where the person at the receiving end of negative coverage is a senior employee or representative, the impact may be felt by the entire organisation.
We know how to remove negative press from the internet and from your Google search results. The right to be forgotten is a now a well-known legal remedy, and many will hope it applies to their circumstances.
But although applications for search engine removals are increasingly common, they are by no means simple. There have also been recent legal updates that affect how the right to be forgotten works in practice.
In this article, we discuss some of the most commonly asked questions and misconceptions about the “right to be forgotten”, as well as considering the impact of several high-profile cases against Google in the last few years.
We have developed a sophisticated method that unable us to Remove Negative Newspaper Articles & Content from the web.
Find out how to remove negative articles from online news sources .
How to Remove Defamatory News Articles from the Internet: how to get a news article removed from the internet . How to Get an Online Newspaper Article Removed from Google .
New High Tech Solution for Removing Newspaper Articles From the Internet . In the past it was perhaps more common to rely on defamation or privacy law to tackle reputational issues, but with an increasing reliance on the internet for information, there are many circumstances in which these legal avenues will be inadequate, such as where the story has gone viral or where the websites publishing the information are outside the UK.
There will also be instances where neither defamation nor privacy law is an option because the information has been lawfully published.
Examples include reports of a criminal trial, which are protected by privilege (even if the individual was found not guilty) and balanced press coverage of false allegations (where the accused individual’s position is reflected in the article), which may be protected from defamation by the “truth” or public interest defence (where the reporting acknowledges the accusations were later disproved). In these cases, having links to the story removed from search results may be best strategy.