Building an Internal Corrections Policy

Last reviewed: 13 June 2026Next review due: 13 December 2026

Why every newsroom needs a written corrections policy

Every newsroom makes mistakes. The question is not whether errors will occur but how the organisation responds when they do. A written corrections policy does three things: it creates a consistent standard that editors and journalists apply regardless of who made the error or how senior they are; it provides a documented process that can be shown to regulators, complainants, and courts; and it protects the publication's credibility by demonstrating that accuracy is treated seriously at an institutional level.

For publications regulated by IPSO, a corrections policy is not merely good practice — it directly relates to compliance with Clause 1(ii) of the Editors' Code of Practice, which imposes an obligation to correct significant inaccuracies promptly and with due prominence. For IMPRESS members, the Standards Code similarly requires a documented and consistently applied corrections process.

A policy need not be lengthy. A single page setting out the correction log format, the severity tiers, the prominence rule, and the escalation chain is sufficient to give a newsroom a defensible and workable framework. The key is that it is written down, accessible to all editorial staff, and actually followed.

The corrections log: what to record and how

A corrections log is the foundation of any corrections policy. It is the internal record that allows an editor to audit how errors have been handled, demonstrates to a regulator that the newsroom takes corrections seriously, and provides a historical trail if a complaint escalates to formal arbitration.

Each entry in the log should capture the following fields:

Date identifiedWhen the error was first brought to the newsroom's attention — by a reader, a subject, or an internal reviewer.
Article URL and publication dateThe full URL of the affected article and the date it was first published, so the log can be cross-referenced with analytics and archive systems.
Description of the errorA factual, neutral account of what was wrong — not an admission of liability, but a clear statement of the inaccuracy.
Severity tierThe tier assigned under the newsroom's severity rating system (see below).
Corrective actionWhat was done: archive note only, new corrections article, both, or other action (such as updating a caption or headline).
Date correctedWhen the correction was published or the archive note added.
Authorising editorThe name and role of the editor who signed off the correction.
Complaint referenceIf the error arose from a formal complaint, the complaint reference number for cross-referencing with the complaints log.

The log should be maintained in a shared, access-controlled system — a spreadsheet on a shared drive, a project management tool, or a dedicated editorial workflow system. It should not live on an individual's machine. Assign one person (typically the managing editor or editorial standards lead) responsibility for maintaining and reviewing the log.

Severity ratings: a three-tier framework

Not all errors carry the same weight. A three-tier severity rating helps newsrooms calibrate their response proportionately, escalate where necessary, and demonstrate to regulators that they distinguish between minor typographical slips and serious factual inaccuracies.

Tier 1 — Minor

Error type: Typographical errors, misspelled names (where the correct identity is clear from context), incorrect dates that do not affect the substance of the story, or factual errors of minor consequence that are unlikely to mislead a reader or damage any person's reputation.

Response: Correct the article directly. Add an inline archive note at the foot of the article. No editorial escalation required beyond the publishing editor.

Tier 2 — Significant

Error type: Factual errors about a person, organisation, event, or statistic that could mislead the reader or cause reputational harm. Errors that misrepresent the outcome of a legal proceeding, misattribute a statement, or materially misstate financial or scientific data fall in this tier.

Response: Correct the article and add a prominent archive note near the top of the article. Log in the corrections log. Sign-off from a senior editor required. Consider whether the subject should be notified of the correction.

Tier 3 — Serious

Error type: Errors that constitute a potential breach of the Editors' Code or IMPRESS Standards Code; errors that create material legal risk (defamation, contempt, data protection); errors that have already been published on multiple platforms or picked up by other outlets; or errors that the subject is likely to complain about formally.

Response: Immediate escalation to the editor-in-chief. Legal review before corrective action is published. Archive note and, in most cases, a standalone corrections article. Consider whether an apology is required under Clause 1(ii). Notify the subject. Record in the corrections log and the complaints log.

The prominence rule under IPSO Clause 1(ii)

Clause 1(ii) of the IPSO Editors' Code requires that a significant inaccuracy must be corrected with due prominence. This is not defined in absolute terms — due prominence is calibrated to the prominence given to the original inaccuracy. An error that appeared on the front page of a print edition, or as the headline claim of a widely shared online article, requires a correction that reaches a comparable audience. Burying a correction in a minor footnote or a rarely visited corrections section does not satisfy the due prominence requirement.

For online publications, the following principles provide a practical framework for assessing prominence:

Place the correction notice at or near the top of the article — not at the foot, where many readers will not see it.
Label it clearly: use the word “Correction” or “Editor\'s note” in a visually distinct format (bold, bordered box, or contrasting colour).
State what was wrong, what the correct information is, and when the correction was made.
Do not rewrite the article silently — the correction notice should accompany any edit to the text, not replace transparent disclosure.
Where the original article has been shared extensively on social media, consider whether a social media post flagging the correction is also warranted.
For print publications, the correction must appear in a position of comparable prominence to the original error.

IPSO guidance: IPSO has published decisions in which publications were found in breach of Clause 1(ii) because corrections were made to the article text without a visible correction notice, or because the correction notice appeared only at the foot of a long article. Newsrooms should treat the correction notice as a non-negotiable element of the correction process, not an optional supplement to a text edit.

Archive note versus new corrections article: when to use each

One of the most common decision points in a corrections process is whether to correct the original article in place (an archive note) or to publish a new standalone corrections article. The choice depends on the severity of the error, the expected audience for each format, and any directions from a regulator.

Archive note (in-article correction)

Best for Tier 1 and most Tier 2 errors where the original article remains largely accurate and can stand corrected.

1Edit the incorrect text or remove the inaccurate claim.
2Add a clearly labelled correction notice near the top of the article.
3Include the date of the correction and a brief description of what changed.
4Do not alter the article URL or publication date — these should remain stable for referencing purposes.
5Update the article's “last modified” date to reflect the correction.

New corrections article

Required for serious Tier 3 errors, IPSO or IMPRESS-directed corrections, or where the original article should not continue to circulate as written.

1Publish a standalone article under a clear “Correction” or “Correction and apology” headline.
2Cross-link both ways: the corrections article links to the original, and the original article carries a prominent notice linking to the correction.
3Include the full text of the original inaccurate claim, the correct information, and an explanation of how the error occurred where appropriate.
4Publish it in a section of the site that receives comparable traffic to the original article — not only in a low-visibility corrections archive.
5Where IPSO has directed a corrections article, comply with any format and placement requirements specified in the ruling.

In practice, most newsrooms use an archive note for the vast majority of corrections and reserve the standalone corrections article for cases directed by a regulator, cases with significant legal implications, or cases where the subject or their legal representative has explicitly requested a standalone piece. The corrections log should record which format was used and the reasoning in each case.

Regulatory context: IPSO, IMPRESS, and the NUJ Code

UK press regulation operates through two main regulatory bodies for most editorial publishers: IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) and IMPRESS (The Independent Monitor for the Press). Both impose accuracy and corrections obligations, but there are differences in emphasis and enforcement approach.

IPSO — Editors' Code of Practice, Clause 1(ii)

Clause 1 covers Accuracy. Clause 1(i) requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. Clause 1(ii) requires that significant inaccuracies be corrected promptly and with due prominence, and that an apology be published where appropriate. IPSO adjudicates complaints under Clause 1 and can direct publishers to publish a specific correction. Persistent non-compliance can lead to formal sanctions including referral to the IPSO Complaints Committee.

IMPRESS — Standards Code, Accuracy

The IMPRESS Standards Code requires member publishers to correct inaccuracies promptly and with due prominence. IMPRESS places particular weight on systemic compliance — whether the publisher has a documented policy and applies it consistently — as part of its regulatory audit process. IMPRESS can require a specific correction notice as part of a formal resolution.

NUJ Code of Conduct

The National Union of Journalists' Code of Conduct requires journalists to do their utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies. While the NUJ Code operates at the level of the individual journalist rather than the publication, it reinforces the professional obligation to correct errors promptly and is relevant context in any internal disciplinary process following a serious inaccuracy.

Escalation chain and editorial accountability

A corrections policy without a clear escalation chain is difficult to enforce. The policy should specify who is responsible at each severity tier and what happens if there is disagreement about the appropriate response.

1
Journalist / reporter: Responsible for flagging any potential error to their editor as soon as it is identified — whether identified internally or by a reader, subject, or third party.
2
Section editor / commissioning editor: First point of escalation. Assesses the error, assigns a severity tier, and determines the initial corrective action for Tier 1 and Tier 2 errors. Escalates Tier 3 errors immediately.
3
Managing editor / editorial standards lead: Maintains the corrections log. Reviews all Tier 2 and Tier 3 decisions. Ensures the correction notice meets the prominence requirement. Signs off the log entry.
4
Editor-in-chief: Has final authority on all Tier 3 corrections and on any correction that may involve legal action or regulator engagement. Approves apologies and any standalone corrections articles.
5
Legal counsel: Must be consulted before any Tier 3 correction is published where there is a legal risk, including defamation, contempt of court, or data protection concerns.

Policy review, training, and a quick-reference checklist

A corrections policy should be treated as a living document. It should be reviewed at least annually, and after any significant error or regulatory adjudication involving the newsroom. New editorial staff should be introduced to the policy as part of their induction, and the corrections log should be reviewed in regular editorial standards meetings.

The checklist below covers the key steps for handling any correction under a compliant internal policy:

Error identified — note the date, source of identification, and article URL.
Assign a severity tier (Tier 1, 2, or 3) and escalate immediately if Tier 3.
Legal review completed if there is any legal risk (Tier 3 only).
Corrective action agreed: archive note, new article, or both.
Correction notice drafted — clearly labelled, describing the error and the correct information, dated.
Prominence assessed — correction notice placed at or near the top of the article.
Article text amended to remove or correct the inaccuracy.
Standalone corrections article published if required (Tier 3 or regulator-directed).
Social media correction considered where the original was widely shared.
Subject notified where the error was about a named individual or organisation.
Corrections log updated with all required fields.
Senior editor sign-off recorded in the log.

Frequently asked questions

What does IPSO Clause 1(ii) require from publishers?

IPSO Clause 1(ii) of the Editors' Code of Practice requires that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. Due prominence means the correction must be given comparable visibility to the original inaccuracy, not buried in a footnote or a minor corrections column. For online articles, this typically means a clearly labelled correction notice at or near the top of the article.

What is the difference between an archive note and a new corrections article?

An archive note is an edit made to the original article, with a clearly labelled correction notice appended to or displayed prominently within that article, explaining what was changed and when. A new corrections article is a standalone published piece addressing the error, cross-linked to the original. Archive notes are appropriate for most factual corrections where the original article remains otherwise accurate. A new corrections article is warranted where the inaccuracy was so significant that the original article should not continue to circulate without a prominent standalone correction, or where IPSO or a regulator directs one.

How should a corrections log be structured?

A corrections log should record: the date the error was identified, the article URL and publication date, a description of the error, the severity rating assigned, the corrective action taken (archive note, new article, or both), the date the correction was published, and the name of the editor who authorised it. The log should be stored in a shared, access-controlled location — not on the individual journalist's machine. Some newsrooms publish a public-facing corrections page drawn from this log; others maintain it internally only.

What severity ratings are commonly used for corrections?

Most corrections policies use a three-tier system: Tier 1 (minor) covers typographical errors, misspelled names, or incorrect dates that do not affect the substance of the story; Tier 2 (significant) covers factual errors about a person, organisation, event, or statistic that could mislead the reader or damage a reputation; Tier 3 (serious) covers errors that constitute a potential breach of the Editors' Code or IMPRESS Standards Code, create a material legal risk, or require a formal response to a regulator. Tier 1 may be corrected without editorial escalation; Tier 2 and Tier 3 require sign-off from a senior editor or editor-in-chief.

Does the IMPRESS Standards Code have a similar requirement to IPSO Clause 1(ii)?

Yes. The IMPRESS Standards Code requires that member publishers correct inaccuracies promptly and with due prominence. The IMPRESS approach places particular emphasis on the systemic quality of the publisher's corrections process — IMPRESS assessors will look at whether a publisher has a documented policy, whether it is being followed consistently, and whether corrections reach a comparable audience to the original error. Publishers regulated by IMPRESS should ensure their internal policy is written down and reviewed at least annually.

Can a newsroom delete an article instead of correcting it?

Deletion is generally not an appropriate substitute for correction. Removing an article without explanation deprives readers of context and may give the false impression that the article never existed. Regulators and courts can take a negative view of unexplained deletions, particularly where a party has complained about the content. Where an article contains errors so serious that it should no longer be live, the preferred approach is to replace it with a clear notice explaining that the article has been removed and why, rather than a silent deletion. The original URL should be retained so that the notice can be found by anyone who shared or bookmarked the original link.

Primary sources

IPSO Editors' Code of Practice — Clause 1 Accuracy— IPSO
IMPRESS Standards Code— IMPRESS
NUJ Code of Conduct— National Union of Journalists
Society of Editors— Society of Editors