The Accuracy Obligation
Accuracy is the foundational obligation of journalism. IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 1 requires that the press take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information or images, including headlines. Clause 1(ii) requires that significant inaccuracies be corrected promptly and with due prominence. This obligation extends to digital publications: correcting an online article without flagging that a correction has been made is insufficient under IPSO guidance.
IMPRESS Standards Code Article 1 mirrors the IPSO obligation for its regulated publishers, adding a requirement for a publicly accessible corrections policy and a reader mechanism for requesting corrections. The Reuters Trust Principles — which have influenced UK editorial standards broadly — require that all facts be checked before publication and that errors be corrected transparently.
Full Fact, the UK’s independent fact-checking organisation, has developed a systematic methodology for assessing and rating claims that provides a useful model for newsroom pre-publication fact-checking. Its approach — isolating specific claims, assessing evidence, providing a verdict, and linking to primary sources — is adaptable to newsroom workflows at any scale.
A Systematic Fact-Checking Workflow
1. Isolate verifiable claims
Identify every factual claim in the draft — statistics, dates, names, titles, events, and attributions. Do not rely on institutional memory or "everyone knows" assumptions. Each claim requires a source.
2. Identify the primary source
For each claim, identify the most authoritative primary source: government statistics, court records, academic publications, official reports, direct statements from named individuals. Do not accept secondary sources (news reports, Wikipedia) as primary evidence.
3. Verify against primary sources
Check each claim directly against the primary source. Be alert to the difference between what a statistic or document says and what is being claimed about it. Many inaccuracies arise from misattribution or mischaracterisation of real data.
4. Check numbers, names, and titles
Numerical errors and name/title errors are among the most common and most damaging inaccuracies. Check every number independently. Check the spelling and current title of every named individual.
5. Document the verification
Record the source for each verified claim in your notes. This documentation supports correction defence and demonstrates due diligence. For complex investigations, a formal fact-check log is standard practice.
6. Escalate contested facts
Where a fact is disputed or cannot be fully verified, flag it to the editor before publication. The choice between publishing with appropriate caveat or holding the story pending further verification is an editorial decision, not a reporter decision.
Red Flags
- ⚠Relying on secondary sources (other news reports, Wikipedia) as primary evidence
- ⚠Statistics cited without identifying the originating dataset or publication
- ⚠Claims from interested parties accepted without independent corroboration
- ⚠Corrections published without any indication that the original was wrong
- ⚠No errata log maintained at newsroom level
- ⚠Headlines that overstate or misrepresent the content of the article
- ⚠AI-generated content published without verification of individual factual claims
- ⚠No reader mechanism for requesting corrections or flagging inaccuracies
Pre-Publication Accuracy Checklist
Corrections & Accuracy Tools
Use the Corrections Generator to draft a compliant correction notice and the IPSO Clause 1 guidance for correction prominence requirements.
Common Mistakes
- ›Silent online corrections: Correcting an article without flagging that a change has been made is not compliant with IPSO Clause 1(ii). The correction must be visible: a dated correction notice appended to the article is standard practice. Silently editing text misleads readers who saw the original.
- ›Burying corrections: "Due prominence" under IPSO Clause 1(ii) means a correction that is as visible as the original error. A correction buried in a small-print footnote or corrections column when the original error appeared on the front page or homepage is not sufficiently prominent.
- ›Accepting claims from interested parties at face value: Statements from parties with a direct interest in the story being told in a particular way — press releases, lobbying documents, promotional material — are not primary sources. They require independent corroboration.
- ›Fact-checking the headline separately from the body: Headlines are subject to Clause 1. A headline that overstates the conclusions of the article, or that implies causation where only correlation is established, is potentially inaccurate under IPSO standards even if the body text is accurate.