The fastest correction is one a reader can find without searching: a permanent, linked, dated corrections page plus a fix at the exact spot in the story where the error lived. That much is settled by published standards — the Society of Professional Journalists' code directs journalists to acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly, and the BBC's published editorial guidelines require on-record corrections appropriate to the seriousness of the error. What stays a judgment call is severity labeling: minor, material, and full retraction lines are newsroom decisions, not code mandates.
This guide walks the four decisions in order. It draws on published ethics codes and outlet standards pages, not on any newsroom's private practice; where the codes are silent, that silence is named.
Decision one: where do corrections live?
In one place and everywhere the error was. The durable pattern, consistent across the published standards of major outlets including the BBC's editorial guidelines: a standing corrections page listing every correction with date and substance, a note appended to the corrected story itself, and the same treatment on social posts where the platform allows edits. A correction published only on the corrections page reaches the dozens; a correction at the point of error reaches the thousands who actually read the mistake.
Your pre-publication check, before any of this matters: keep the correction trail searchable. If your CMS timestamps every change silently, you have no trail — you have a version history nobody can audit.
Decision two: what gets a correction, and how fast?
Error of fact gets corrected; matters of tone and emphasis get reviewed, not necessarily flagged. The SPJ code's language — acknowledge mistakes, correct promptly — sets the floor. Speed standards are newsroom-set, and the honest teaching point is that most standards pages commit to correcting as soon as verified, without fixing a deadline. A workable internal rule many standards documents converge on: factual corrections go up as soon as the error is confirmed, not on a schedule.
Decision three: how much detail does the note carry?
Enough that a reader who saw the wrong version learns what was wrong. A comparison of the three common formats:
| Format | What it states | Best used for |
|---|---|---|
| Inline note | What was wrong, what is now correct, date of change | Material errors in live stories |
| Standalone correction | Full statement of the original error and the correction | Errors in quoted material, names, numbers |
| Retraction notice | Story withdrawn and why | Fundamental failures of the reporting itself |
The format matters less than the two invariants: the note says what was wrong in plain language, and it never buries the correction in passive voice. "An earlier version misstated" is the accepted construction; "we were wrong" is better, and both beat silent fixes.
Decision four: who signs it?
The desk that made the call. Published codes do not mandate a byline on corrections, and practice varies — some outlets sign corrections from the standards editor, some from the desk, some run unsigned with a named contact channel. What the codes do settle is accountability: the SPJ frame ties corrections to ethical responsibility, which argues for a named human reachable by email, not a form that swallows reader reports.
Before you publish anything, run this five-step audit of your current practice:
- Find your corrections page as a reader would — three clicks from the homepage, or fewer.
- Pick your last three corrections; confirm each appears both on the story and on the standing page.
- Check that social versions of corrected stories were corrected or annotated too.
- Confirm a reader contact path exists and that someone owns the inbox.
- Decide, in writing, your severity labels — minor, material, retraction — and what each triggers.
What the codes settle — and what they don't
Settled: promptness, transparency of substance, and the reader's ability to see what changed. Contested: whether corrections deserve their own push notifications, whether anonymous-tip corrections should name the person who caught the error, and how long a correction note stays attached to a live story. Those are judgment calls, and the strongest standards pages say so out loud. A corrections policy a reader can find is less a document than a habit with an address — and the habit is the part that takes the practice to build.
For more context, read Complete Guide to Comic Book Collecting for Beginners.
For more context, read How a Manuscript Moves From Track Changes to a Typeset PDF.
For more context, read How to Run a Four-Day Week Without Losing Output.