Why we will always show you our corrections

No publication gets everything right. Reporters work quickly, sources make mistakes, and new information emerges after a story is published. Pretending otherwise does readers no favours.

Errors come in many sizes. A name misspelled. A date out by a year. A figure attributed to the wrong organisation. Occasionally, something more serious: a claim that turns out not to be supported by the evidence. Each of these matters, because each tells a reader something about how carefully the rest of the work was done.

Silent edits erode trust

When an article changes without explanation, readers who saw the earlier version are left confused, or suspicious. They may wonder what else has been quietly altered.

Silent edits cause practical problems too. Someone may have quoted the original version, shared it or relied on it in a decision. If the text simply changes underneath them, they have no way of knowing that what they read was wrong, and anyone they passed it on to is left with the error. In a world where screenshots last for ever, a quiet fix does not even succeed in hiding the mistake. It only hides the fact that it was fixed.

Visible corrections build it

A short, dated note at the end of an article that says what was wrong and what has been corrected does the opposite. It tells readers that facts are checked even after publication, and that the publication takes accuracy seriously enough to admit its errors.

A good correction is specific. It does not say “an earlier version of this article contained an error”. It says what the error was, what the correct information is and when the change was made. It is also proportionate: a typo does not need a note, but anything that changes the meaning of a fact does.

The strongest objection

The most common argument against prominent corrections is that they draw attention to failure. A long list of correction notes, the reasoning goes, might make a publication look less reliable than rivals that simply fix things quietly. Some editors also worry that corrections can be used against reporters, or that readers will remember the note and forget the story.

I take that worry seriously, and it is not foolish. But it rests on an assumption I do not share: that readers believe any publication is error-free. They do not. What they cannot see is whether a publication is honest about its mistakes. A newsroom that never publishes corrections is not one that never errs. It is one that does not tell you when it does. Over time, I believe readers notice the difference, and that openness is the better long-term bet for trust.

There is also an internal benefit. A visible correction is a small, useful embarrassment. It prompts the question of how the error happened and what would prevent it next time, whether that is an extra check on names, a second look at figures or a clearer rule about sourcing.

What we commit to

That is why this site shows the date an article was updated and adds a correction note whenever we fix a factual error. In practice, that means:

• We correct factual errors promptly once we have confirmed them.
• We say what changed, in a dated note on the article itself.
• We do not quietly rewrite the substance of a published story.
• We distinguish corrections from updates, so that new developments are not mistaken for fixes, or fixes for developments.

Our full approach is set out in our Corrections Policy, and the standards behind our reporting are in our Editorial Policy.

If you spot something wrong, please tell us. Be as specific as you can about what you think is inaccurate and why. We read every message, and corrections that come from readers are among the most valuable we make. It makes our work better.