Corrections and Right of Reply Pack
Three tools and four guides for managing corrections and right-of-reply obligations compliantly — from generating IPSO-standard correction notices to understanding the legal framework for right of reply in the UK.
Last reviewed: Next review due:
Who this pack is for
This pack is for journalists and editors who need to manage corrections and right-of-reply obligations quickly and correctly. It is particularly relevant for reporters and editors at IPSO-regulated publications who handle reader complaints, need to correct published errors with appropriate prominence, or want to implement a robust pre-publication right-of-reply process that will withstand regulatory scrutiny.
Corrections and right of reply are the two most common sources of IPSO complaints and, when handled badly, can escalate into defamation claims and regulatory investigations. This pack gives you the tools to handle both correctly — and the guides to understand the legal and regulatory framework around them. Getting these processes right is one of the most important things any journalist or newsroom can do to protect itself and its subjects.
What’s included
Three tools and four guides — click any card to open it directly.
Corrections Generator
Produce an IPSO-compliant correction notice with the correct prominence language, structure, and wording for any published error.
Right of Reply Generator
Generate a formal, specific right-of-reply letter with the allegation, deadline, and your contact details — IPSO Clause 1 compliant.
Defamation Risk Checklist
Assess defamation risk before publication: whether a statement is defamatory, which defences apply, and what reduces your exposure.
Guide: Right of Reply Law
The legal and regulatory framework for right of reply in the UK: IPSO obligations, defamation law, and best practice.
Guide: Corrections and Clarifications
The difference between corrections and clarifications, when each is required, and how to draft them compliantly.
Guide: Corrections Policy
How to write and implement a newsroom corrections policy that meets IPSO requirements and builds reader trust.
Corrections Trust Page
Our public-facing corrections log — a model for how publications can publish corrections and build editorial transparency.
How to use this pack
- 1
Set up your corrections policy before you need it
Read the Corrections Policy guide and use it to draft or review your newsroom's corrections policy. A clear, documented policy makes it much easier to handle individual corrections consistently, trains new staff, and demonstrates to IPSO that you have a systematic approach to accuracy. Publish your corrections policy — and your corrections log — on your website.
- 2
Send right-of-reply letters for every significant allegation
Use the Right of Reply Generator to produce a specific, factual right-of-reply letter for every significant factual allegation in your stories. Store all correspondence. Read the Right of Reply Law guide to understand the full legal and regulatory framework — including when a right of reply is required and what happens if you do not give one.
- 3
Check defamation risk before publication
Use the Defamation Risk Checklist before publishing any story that makes factual allegations about a named individual or organisation. Identify which statements carry risk and which defences apply. Document your reasoning. This pre-publication step is your most important protection against both IPSO complaints and defamation claims.
- 4
Use the Corrections Generator promptly when errors arise
When an error is identified — by a reader, a subject, or your own editorial review — use the Corrections Generator immediately. Speed matters: IPSO takes prompt correction seriously. Read the Corrections and Clarifications guide to determine whether you need a formal correction or a less formal clarification, and draft accordingly.
- 5
Publish corrections transparently and maintain a corrections log
Review the Corrections Trust Page for a model of transparent corrections publishing. Add each correction to your corrections log and add a clearly labelled correction note to the top of every corrected article. Transparency about errors builds reader trust far more effectively than trying to minimise or hide them.
Red flags — corrections and right of reply errors
- Publishing without a right-of-reply letter where the story makes significant factual allegations about a named individual or organisation — this is the single most common ground for upheld IPSO complaints.
- Burying a correction in a small-print column or at the foot of a long article when the original error appeared prominently — IPSO's due-prominence rule requires proportionality.
- Silently editing an online article to correct an error without adding a correction notice — this creates a misleading record and is itself a breach of the Editors' Code.
- Conflating a correction with an apology — not every correction requires an apology, and an unnecessary apology can complicate defamation proceedings by implying malice.
- Giving a subject an inadequate right-of-reply deadline — a 2-hour deadline for a complex allegation is not “reasonable opportunity” and will not satisfy IPSO or a defamation court.
- Failing to document the right-of-reply correspondence — if no response was received, or a response was received but not published, both the letter and any reply must be stored as evidence.
- Treating a complaint as a legal threat before reading it carefully — many complaints can be resolved with a prompt, properly worded correction before an IPSO complaint is filed.
Primary sources
- IPSO Editors' Code of Practice — Clause 1 (Accuracy), the due-prominence rule, and definitions of correction vs clarification
- IPSO Rulings and Resolution Statements — searchable database of adjudicated complaints; essential for understanding how the Code is applied
- Defamation Act 2013 — the legal context for corrections: offer of amends (s.2–s.4), defences including truth and honest opinion
- NUJ Code of Conduct — Clause 3 (accuracy and correction) and Clause 4 (fair treatment)
- IMPRESS Standards Code — alternative regulatory framework; Standard 1 covers accuracy and corrections for IMPRESS-regulated publishers
- Ofcom Broadcasting Code — Section 7 (fairness) applies to right of reply in broadcast journalism
Common mistakes
- Sending a vague right-of-reply letter. “We are writing a story about your organisation — do you have a comment?” does not satisfy IPSO. You must set out the specific allegation you are putting to the subject.
- Not publishing a subject's response. Where a subject provides a substantive denial or response, IPSO expects it to be reflected in the article — either directly quoted or fairly summarised.
- Correcting the online version but not the print edition. IPSO requires corrections in the same medium as the original error — if the article ran in print, the correction must also run in print, not just online.
- Delaying a correction while legal advice is sought. Time matters — the longer an inaccuracy persists, the greater the reputational harm and the harder it becomes to defend an IPSO complaint. Correct first, refine the wording with legal input if needed.
- Treating a pre-publication query as a substitute for a right of reply. A subject calling your newsroom to query a story is not the same as a formal right-of-reply letter with a specific allegation, a deadline, and a record of their response.