Editor Standards Pack

Who this pack is for

This pack is for editors — section editors, news editors, digital editors, and senior reporters with editorial responsibility — who need structured tools for managing the standards and compliance requirements of UK journalism. It is particularly useful for editors at IPSO-regulated publications who need to handle corrections, right of reply, and pre-publication risk assessment consistently and documentably.

The pack covers the full range of editorial standards tasks that arise in daily newsroom management: post-publication corrections (with IPSO-compliant prominence), pre-publication right of reply, public interest testing, AI use disclosure, pre-publication ethical decision-making, formal IPSO complaint handling, and consistent attribution of wire versus original copy. It also includes guides on corrections policy, conflicts of interest, and the IPSO code framework, giving editors both tools and the context to use them correctly.

What’s included

Five tools and four guides — click any card to open it directly.

Copy-and-paste templates

Three ready-to-use templates for the recurring standards moments every editor faces: an incoming IPSO complaint, rolling out a corrections policy change, and setting a clear attribution policy for wire copy.

IPSO COMPLAINT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER

To: [COMPLAINANT NAME]
From: [EDITOR NAME / STANDARDS EDITOR], [PUBLICATION]
Re: Your complaint dated [DATE] regarding "[ARTICLE HEADLINE]", published [DATE]

Dear [COMPLAINANT NAME],

Thank you for your complaint dated [DATE], received [DATE RECEIVED].

I am writing to confirm your complaint has been logged and will be
considered in accordance with [PUBLICATION]'s complaints procedure and the
IPSO Editors' Code of Practice.

Your complaint concerns the following clause(s): [CLAUSE NUMBER(S) — e.g.
Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy)].

We will review the article, the reporting process, and any relevant source
material. We aim to provide a substantive response within [10] working days;
if our review takes longer, we will update you before that deadline passes.

If, after our internal process, you remain dissatisfied, you retain the
right to refer your complaint to IPSO at any stage.

Please let us know if you have documents or further information you would
like us to consider.

Yours sincerely,
[NAME / TITLE], [PUBLICATION]
[CONTACT EMAIL]

INTERNAL MEMO: CORRECTIONS POLICY UPDATE

To: All editorial staff
From: [EDITOR-IN-CHIEF / STANDARDS EDITOR]
Date: [DATE]
Re: Updated corrections policy — effective [DATE]

Team,

We are updating our corrections policy. Please read this memo in full and
direct questions to [STANDARDS EDITOR NAME].

WHAT'S CHANGING
1. All corrections must be logged in [CORRECTIONS LOG SYSTEM/TOOL] within
   24 hours of the error being identified — not just published on the site.
2. Online corrections must carry a visible, dated correction note at the
   TOP of the article, not only a silent edit to the body text.
3. Corrections to homepage, print front-page, or major newsletter stories
   must get equivalent prominence in that channel — see the Corrections
   Generator for suggested wording by severity.
4. Significant errors (wrong identification, false allegation, materially
   wrong figures) require sign-off from [SENIOR/STANDARDS EDITOR] before
   the correction is published.
5. Minor errors (typos, non-material details) can be corrected by the
   author or duty editor without sign-off, but must still be logged.

WHY
This brings us in line with IPSO's "due prominence" requirement under
Clause 1 and reduces the risk of escalated complaints, while giving us a
defensible record if a correction is later challenged.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO
- Read the full Corrections Policy guide: [LINK]
- Use the Corrections Generator for every correction going forward: [LINK]
- Log every correction, however small, in [SYSTEM]

Questions to [STANDARDS EDITOR NAME] before [DATE].

[NAME / TITLE]

BYLINE & ATTRIBUTION POLICY STATEMENT (WIRE COPY VS ORIGINAL REPORTING)

[PUBLICATION NAME] — Attribution Policy

PURPOSE
Readers are entitled to know whether they are reading our own original
reporting or copy substantially sourced from a wire agency. This policy
sets out how we attribute each.

ORIGINAL REPORTING
Stories based on our own reporting, interviews, or analysis carry a full
individual byline: "By [REPORTER NAME]." Where a story combines original
reporting with wire material: "By [REPORTER NAME], with additional
reporting from [AGENCY]."

WIRE COPY (LIGHTLY EDITED)
Stories that are substantially wire agency copy, with only house-style
edits, carry the agency attribution in place of a personal byline:
"[AGENCY NAME]" (e.g. "PA Media", "Reuters"). No staff byline on these.

WIRE COPY (SUBSTANTIALLY REWRITTEN OR LOCALISED)
Where a staff journalist substantially rewrites or localises wire material:
"By [REPORTER NAME], [AGENCY NAME] and [PUBLICATION] staff."

AI-ASSISTED CONTENT
Any AI use in drafting, summarising, or translating copy must be disclosed
per our AI Disclosure Checklist, in addition to the attribution rules above.

ENFORCEMENT
Section/duty editors check attribution before publication. Misattributed
copy is corrected via the standard Corrections Generator process, logged
as an accuracy issue.

Effective date: [DATE]. Owner: [STANDARDS EDITOR NAME].

How to use this pack

1. 1

   Set your corrections and AI disclosure policy first

   Read the Corrections Policy guide and the AI Disclosure Checklist to ensure your newsroom has clear, documented policies before problems arise. Write down your publication's approach to each type of error and each type of AI use. Use the Internal Memo template to roll any policy change out to staff clearly. This makes it much easier to handle individual cases consistently and defend your decisions to IPSO if challenged.

2. 2

   Use the Ethics Flowchart for pre-publication dilemmas

   For any story where an editor is uncertain about privacy, harm, identification of children, or use of sensitive material, work through the Ethics Flowchart. Document your decision and the reasoning. This creates an editorial record that protects the publication if the decision is later challenged by a subject or regulator.

3. 3

   Run the Public Interest Test Builder for sensitive stories

   For any story involving privacy intrusion, potentially defamatory allegations, or sensitive personal information, use the Public Interest Test Builder to document the two-limb test. Save or print the output and attach it to the editorial file for the story.

4. 4

   Send right-of-reply letters using the generator

   For every story making a significant factual allegation about a named individual or organisation, use the Right of Reply Generator to produce a specific, factual right-of-reply letter. Track each right of reply in a log with the deadline, response received, and how the response (or non-response) was handled in the published story.

5. 5

   Handle post-publication errors promptly with the Corrections Generator

   When an error is identified, use the Corrections Generator immediately. Do not delay — the longer an error remains uncorrected, the more it compounds harm to the subject and the harder an IPSO complaint becomes to defend. Ensure the correction has due prominence: for online articles, add a clearly labelled correction at the top of the original piece.

6. 6

   Acknowledge every IPSO-relevant complaint within 48 hours

   As soon as a complaint raising an Editors' Code clause arrives, send the IPSO Complaint Acknowledgement Letter. Log the complaint, the clause(s) engaged, and your internal review deadline. This shows IPSO and the complainant that you are engaging constructively with the process from the outset.

7. 7

   Keep attribution consistent across wire and original copy

   Apply the Byline & Attribution Policy Statement consistently across every desk. Spot-check regularly for misattributed wire copy, especially on fast-moving breaking news where copy is often published under deadline pressure with less scrutiny.

Red-flags checklist

Run any story, complaint, or newsroom process against this list before things escalate.

EDITORIAL STANDARDS RED-FLAGS CHECKLIST

Review any story or complaint against these warning signs before it escalates:

CORRECTION BURIED OR DELAYED
[ ] Known error uncorrected for 24-48+ hours, or corrected without due
    prominence relative to the original? → Escalate now; delay compounds harm.

NO RIGHT OF REPLY ON RECORD
[ ] Significant factual allegation with no record of a right-of-reply
    approach to the subject? → Clause 1 risk. Do not publish until resolved.

UNDISCLOSED AI USE
[ ] AI used to draft, summarise, or translate without disclosure per your
    AI Disclosure Checklist? → Add disclosure now, or as a correction.

UNDISCLOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[ ] Byline reporter or editor has an undisclosed personal/financial
    interest in the subject? → Disclose, reassign, or recuse.

MISATTRIBUTED WIRE COPY
[ ] Wire agency copy running under a staff byline with no agency credit,
    or vice versa? → Fix per the Byline & Attribution Policy; log as an
    accuracy correction if already published.

IPSO COMPLAINT WITH NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
[ ] IPSO-relevant complaint unacknowledged for 48+ hours? → Send the IPSO
    Complaint Acknowledgement Letter immediately.

NO ETHICS FLOWCHART RECORD ON A SENSITIVE STORY
[ ] Story involving privacy, harm, or a vulnerable individual has no
    documented ethics decision on file? → Complete the Ethics Flowchart
    before publication.

Sources: IPSO Editors' Code of Practice, IPSO Regulations, NUJ Code of Conduct.

Common mistakes

• ×Editing an online error silently instead of adding a visible, dated correction note with due prominence — this is one of the most common IPSO Clause 1 breaches.
• ×Treating an IPSO complaint acknowledgement as an opportunity to argue the substance of the complaint, rather than a neutral holding response — this can undermine your position later.
• ×Applying attribution rules inconsistently — crediting the agency on some wire stories but not others, which erodes reader trust and looks arbitrary if challenged.
• ×Letting a corrections policy exist only informally in senior editors' heads rather than as a written, circulated policy that junior staff can actually follow under deadline pressure.

Frequently asked questions

Related packs