Last reviewed: Next review due:
The corrections framework: what the rules actually say
UK journalists have corrections obligations from two main sources: their professional code of conduct and, if their outlet is IPSO or IMPRESS regulated, the regulatory code.
NUJ Code of Conduct Clause 3requires members to “do their utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies”. This is a personal professional obligation on the journalist, not just the outlet.
IPSO Editors’ Code Clause 1(ii)requires that a significant inaccuracy, once established, must be “corrected, promptly and with due prominence”. IPSO applies this standard to all regulated publications.
IMPRESS Standards Code contains equivalent provisions for IMPRESS-regulated publishers, requiring prompt correction with appropriate prominence.
Beyond the codes, corrections also matter legally. A prompt, transparent correction can mitigate damages in a defamation claim. It can also prevent a relatively minor error from becoming a complaint to IPSO. And it is simply the right thing to do.
Correction
Acknowledges a specific factual error and states the correct position. Should clearly identify what was wrong.
Clarification
Adds context or nuance without acknowledging a factual error — often used where meaning was ambiguous rather than wrong.
Apology
Expresses regret for harm caused. Goes beyond acknowledging error. Never agree to publish one without legal advice.
Retraction
Withdraws the entire article or a substantial portion. Only appropriate where the story was fundamentally wrong. Requires legal advice.
When are you obliged to correct?
- ›You have published a factual claim that you now know to be wrong and the error is material to the story.
- ›A named individual or organisation has contacted you with a credible correction and you cannot refute it.
- ›You have received an IPSO complaint alleging inaccuracy and the complaint has merit on the facts.
- ›Your story was based on a source that has subsequently been shown to be unreliable or has retracted their account.
- ›New evidence has come to light that materially changes the picture — even if nothing you published was wrong at the time.
- ›A court has made a finding of fact that contradicts something you published.
Red flags: correction failures that lead to complaints and claims
- ●Silently editing an online article without any correction notice — readers who shared the original version continue to spread the error.
- ●Publishing a correction so small and so buried that readers who saw the original never see it.
- ●Correcting the error but removing the original article entirely without explanation — this can make your position worse in litigation.
- ●Treating a clarification as a correction when the error was substantial — a clarification that does not admit fault may not satisfy IPSO.
- ●Refusing to correct because you believe you were substantially right — IPSO looks at specific accuracy, not overall fairness.
- ●Agreeing to publish a correction in terms dictated by the claimant's solicitor without taking legal advice on those terms.
Corrections process checklist
- When an error is identified, confirm it is factually wrong — not just contested or uncomfortable.
- Assess the severity: is this a minor error (wrong date, title, spelling) or a significant inaccuracy that materially affects the meaning?
- For minor errors: correct the article, add a brief editor's note at the foot stating what was changed and when.
- For significant errors: publish a correction notice that is at least as prominent as the original error, using the corrections generator to draft it.
- Ensure the correction identifies what was wrong and states the correct position clearly.
- If the story was heavily promoted on social media, share the correction with equivalent prominence.
- For print publications, schedule the correction for the next available edition in the appropriate section.
- Notify the person who was the subject of the error that a correction has been published.
- Keep a record of when the error was identified, when you were notified, and when the correction was published.
- If you have received an IPSO complaint, do not publish a correction that effectively concedes the complaint without taking regulatory advice.
- Review whether a correction materially changes the article for the purposes of the Defamation Act 2013 single publication rule.
Corrections tools
Use the corrections generator to draft a IPSO-compliant correction notice, and the right of reply generator where a post-publication response is also warranted.
Common corrections mistakes
- ⚠Publishing a correction that omits what was actually wrong — IPSO requires the correction to identify the original error.
- ⚠Treating a significant inaccuracy as minor to avoid the prominence obligation.
- ⚠Using weasel language (“we should have been clearer”) when a direct factual correction is required.
- ⚠Agreeing to an apology without legal advice — it can constitute an admission of liability.
- ⚠Publishing a correction on the website but not notifying the affected party, so the complaint proceeds anyway.
- ⚠Waiting weeks to correct a significant error because of internal disagreement about whether it was wrong.
Related guides
Right of Reply: Process, Timing & Templates
How a pre-publication right of reply is distinct from post-publication correction.
UK JournoHub Corrections Policy
How we handle corrections on this site — a model policy for reference.
Press Complaints & IPSO Guide
How IPSO processes accuracy complaints and what outcomes are available.
Journalism Ethics
NUJ Code obligations on accuracy and correction.
Primary sources
Frequently asked questions
What makes an inaccuracy "significant" under IPSO Clause 1(ii)?
IPSO's definition focuses on materiality: was the inaccuracy capable of misleading readers in a way that matters? Minor errors of style or immaterial details may not require a published correction, but any factual error that materially alters the meaning of a story, or that causes or is likely to cause real harm to a named individual or organisation, is significant. IPSO considers the severity of the inaccuracy, the prominence of the original story, and the potential for lasting harm.
What does "due prominence" mean for a correction?
A correction must be given prominence at least equivalent to the inaccuracy it corrects. If the inaccuracy was on the front page, a correction buried on page 19 will not meet the standard. Online, if the story was heavily promoted on social media, the correction should also be prominently shared. IPSO has found publications in breach for corrections that were published but insufficiently prominent. The principle is that readers who saw the original error should also see the correction.
Should I silently correct an error on a webpage or add a visible correction notice?
It depends on the severity. Minor factual errors (a wrong date, a misspelled name that does not affect meaning) are often corrected silently with a brief editor's note at the bottom of the article. Significant inaccuracies should carry a prominent, visible correction notice that states what was wrong and what the correct information is. Deleting an error without any notice at all is generally inconsistent with transparency standards and can make a defamation position worse, not better.
What is the single publication rule and how does it affect corrections?
Under s.8 Defamation Act 2013, the single publication rule means the one-year limitation period for defamation runs from the date of first publication, not each time the article is accessed. This prevents perpetual liability for maintained archives. However, if you make a "materially different" publication after the first — for example, adding a more prominent headline, sharing it again on social media, or significantly updating the article — a new limitation period may start. This means corrections that materially change the article can re-start the clock.
What is the difference between a correction, a clarification, and a retraction?
A correction acknowledges a specific factual error and states the correct position. A clarification adds context or nuance without acknowledging a specific error — for example, noting that a percentage figure applied only to one category. An apology goes further, expressing regret for the harm caused. A retraction withdraws the entire article or a substantial part of it, typically used where the story was fundamentally wrong. Retraction should not be agreed to without legal advice, as it can affect your legal position in any defamation claim.