What This Means in Plain English
A corrections policy is not a sign of weakness — it is a sign of editorial maturity. Every publication makes mistakes. The difference between trustworthy and untrustworthy journalism is not the absence of errors but how errors are handled when they occur.
IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 1(ii) requires that “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence.” IMPRESS Standards Code has equivalent provisions. Both regulators expect that publishers have a publicly accessible procedure for handling corrections before complaints reach the regulator.
A corrections policy also has legal relevance. In defamation proceedings, a prompt and prominent correction can be evidence against malice, support a public-interest defence, and demonstrate that the publisher acted responsibly. Conversely, refusing to correct a known error, or doing so inadequately, strengthens a claimant’s case.
When This Matters Most
Factual errors in news
Incorrect figures, wrong names, misattributed quotes — these require prompt, prominent correction notices.
Misleading headlines
IPSO Clause 1(i) covers headlines not supported by the text. Correcting a misleading headline requires updating both headline and adding a correction notice.
Archive and digital content
Online content persists indefinitely. Old errors can resurface; archived versions may need to be annotated or corrected.
Right of reply requests
IPSO Clause 1(iii) requires a fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies. Your policy should set out how this works.
Silent online edits
Changing content after publication without disclosure undermines trust and may breach Clause 1(ii).
Defamation proceedings
How and when you corrected can affect your legal position: it may support or undermine defences.
Red Flags
- !No publicly accessible corrections policy — IPSO and IMPRESS both require one
- !Corrections are buried in small print, below-the-fold, or only accessible via a separate corrections log
- !Online articles are silently edited after significant factual errors without any correction notice
- !The publication has no tiered approach — treating a misplaced comma the same way as a materially false claim
- !Right-of-reply requests are ignored or responses are delayed past the point where they are useful
- !Correction notices are removed after a period, leaving no record that an error occurred
- !Corrections are made to online versions but not archived print editions that remain in circulation
- !Correction log is not maintained, making it impossible to demonstrate responsive compliance to a regulator
Severity Tiers: A Framework
Tier 1 — Minor / Typographical
Misspelled names, transposed digits with no material impact, style errors. Silent correction acceptable; log the change internally.
Tier 2 — Factual Error (Non-Material)
An incorrect date, minor figure error, or wrong job title that does not affect the substance of the story. Add a timestamped correction note at the foot of the article.
Tier 3 — Significant Inaccuracy
An error that materially changes the meaning or implications of a story. Requires a prominent correction notice at the top of the article, equivalent prominence in print, and consideration of right-of-reply.
Tier 4 — Material Misrepresentation / Defamatory Error
A false statement that may have damaged reputation. Requires a prominent correction, potential formal apology, right-of-reply offer, legal review, and IPSO notification where a complaint has been made.
Corrections Policy Checklist
- Is your corrections policy publicly accessible on your website?
- Does it explain how readers can report errors (email address, contact form, page URL)?
- Does it specify your initial response timeframe (e.g. 5 working days)?
- Does it set out your severity tiers and what action each tier triggers?
- Does it define "due prominence" for both digital and print formats?
- Does it include a right-of-reply commitment for significant inaccuracies?
- Does it address how archived or cached versions of corrected content are handled?
- Do you maintain an internal correction log with dates, nature of error, and action taken?
- Is it clear who holds ultimate responsibility for approving corrections (e.g. editor-in-chief)?
- Does it address the "annotated correction" model — leaving the original text visible with a strikethrough?
Draft a correction notice now
Our Corrections Generator produces severity-tiered correction notices in the format IPSO expects — from a minor footnote to a prominent front-of-article correction statement.
Open Corrections Generator →Common Mistakes
- ›"We updated this article" is not a correction notice — it must say what was wrong, what is now correct, and when the change was made.
- ›Assuming that because IPSO hasn't complained yet, your current practice is compliant.
- ›Deleting reader comments that pointed out an error before the correction is published — this removes evidence and damages trust further.
- ›Making the correction in the online version but not notifying the print desk for equivalent action in next available print edition.
- ›Treating right-of-reply as optional — IPSO Clause 1(iii) says a fair opportunity should be given "when reasonably called for".
- ›Not logging corrections internally: if a regulator asks for your compliance history, no log means no evidence of responsible practice.
- ›Issuing a correction in a tweet that has 3% of the reach of the original error — "due prominence" applies online as much as in print.