Running a visible corrections practice

What does a workable corrections policy look like for a very small independent publication?

A workable corrections policy is a short written promise, backed by a simple public log and a clear decision path. It does not require a legal team or a software platform. It requires that when you get a material fact wrong, you correct it quickly, clearly, and where the error appeared. The BBC's editorial guidelines call for exactly that: serious factual errors should normally be acknowledged and corrected quickly, clearly and appropriately (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). That single standard is enough to anchor a small operation.

[IMAGE: A desk with a printed corrections log open beside a red pen and a cup]

Why do small publications need a corrections page at all?

Because trust is built or lost one correction at a time, and small publications have no reputation cushion. The BBC guidelines state that due accuracy is fundamental to reputation and audience trust (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). A tiny outlet cannot rely on brand recognition to survive a silent error. A visible corrections practice turns a weakness into a strength: it shows readers you care more about being right than about appearing right. It also protects you from the slow erosion that happens when readers notice an error, see no acknowledgment, and quietly stop trusting everything else you publish.

What should the policy actually say in one paragraph?

Write four sentences. First: we aim for due accuracy in everything we publish. Second: when we find a serious factual error, we correct it quickly, clearly, and in the same place the error appeared. Third: we log substantive corrections on a public page. Fourth: we do not silently delete or rewrite published work to hide an error. The BBC guidelines distinguish between the accuracy required of different genres, noting that factual content, historical documentary, current affairs, and news may each carry different expectations (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). Your paragraph should reflect the kind of content you actually publish, not an aspiration borrowed from a newsroom ten times your size.

How do you classify errors so you correct the right things?

Use a two-tier system. Tier one covers material factual errors: a wrong name, date, number, quote, attribution, or claim that changes the meaning of a piece. These get a correction. Tier two covers typos, style changes, and minor formatting fixes. These can be fixed silently without a log entry. The distinction matters because a corrections log that includes every misplaced comma becomes noise, and readers stop checking it. The BBC guidelines say that claims and material facts that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). An attribution error, therefore, is a material factual error and belongs in tier one.

Should you correct in place, append a note, or both?

Do both, but lead with the in-place fix. If a sentence contains a wrong number, fix the number in the sentence. Then add a dated note at the bottom of the article: corrected on [date], the original said X. This gives future readers the accurate version immediately and gives careful readers the transparency they deserve. Never quietly delete a correction note later, because that turns a correction into a cover-up. The BBC guidelines call for corrections to be appropriate and quick, not hidden (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). A small publication can implement this with a single line of text at the foot of every corrected article and a separate corrections page.

What does a public corrections log look like in practice?

It looks like a reverse-chronological list with four fields: date of correction, article title and link, what was wrong, and what changed. That is it. No legal review, no editor's essay. The Guardian's editorial code states that journalists must adhere to rules and that guidance is available internally (https://www.theguardian.com/info/2015/aug/05/the-guardians-editorial-code). A public log is the small-publication equivalent: a visible commitment that anyone can inspect. Keep the log on a stable URL so readers can bookmark it, and link to it from your footer and from every corrected article.

How do you decide whether an error is serious enough to log?

Use this decision checklist.

Question	If yes	If no
Does the error change a material fact, number, name, date, or attribution?	Correct in place and log it	Fix silently if it is a typo or style change
Could a reasonable reader be misled about a person, organisation, or event?	Correct in place and log it	Still fix quickly, but logging is optional
Was the error in a headline, summary, or social post?	Correct in all places and log it	Correct in the article body
Would a reader who saw the original need to see the correction?	Add a dated note at the foot and log it	A silent fix is usually enough

This checklist is grounded in the BBC principle that the BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). A small publication can adopt the same principle without adopting the same bureaucracy.

Who handles corrections when there is no staff?

One named person, even if that person is also the writer, editor, and publisher. Write that name into your policy. The BBC guidelines assign accountable editorial figures for specific decisions, including AI deployment (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). You do not need a committee. You need a single decision-maker who can say yes or no within 24 hours and who writes the log entry. If that person is also the original author, that is fine. The point is that the decision is made and recorded, not that it is made by someone else. For a very small publication, a named individual is more transparent than an anonymous process.

How do you keep the practice alive after the first month?

Review the log quarterly. Count how many corrections you made, what kinds of errors they were, and whether any pattern appears. Then adjust your sourcing routine. The BBC guidelines connect accuracy to being well sourced, based on sound evidence, and where possible corroborated (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). If most corrections come from a single type of claim, such as dates or numbers, add a second check for that type before publishing. A small publication can also set a simple rule: every correction gets a one-line log entry within two business days. That habit turns a policy into a practice.

When should you consult current official guidance?

Consult current official guidance when an error involves legal risk, defamation, privacy, or a regulated subject. The BBC guidelines note that where content producers believe they have broadcast a defamatory inaccuracy, Programme Legal Advice must be consulted (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). A small independent publication should treat that as a signal: if the correction touches on someone's reputation, finances, health, or legal status, get advice from a qualified professional before publishing the correction. This article explains decisions, not legal rules, and rules change. When in doubt, check the current version of the relevant code or regulation.

A final word on silence

Silence is the default failure mode. The BBC guidelines state that the BBC must do all it can to ensure due accuracy and must not knowingly and materially mislead audiences (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accuracy/). A tiny publication cannot do all that a large broadcaster does, but it can do the small version: correct quickly, clearly, and visibly. That is a practice, not a promise. Write it down. Log it. Review it. The rest follows.