How to Request a Correction to a News Article: A Seven-Step Guide for Companies

How to Request a Correction at a Glance

What You Need Before Starting

• The article URL, headline, byline and publication date, and whether it ran online, in print or both.
• A dated copy of the article as it currently reads (PDF or full-page screenshot showing the URL).
• The exact sentences you believe are wrong, copied word for word.
• A document that proves each correct fact: a filing, an official record, a dated published statement, a contract extract you are willing to share.
• One person at your company who will send and own the request, with authority to speak for the company.
• The publication's published corrections or complaints policy, if it has one.

What Is a Correction?

A correction is a published amendment that fixes a factual error in an article and, at most reputable outlets, tells readers that the change was made. It is different from a removal (taking the article down) and from a right of reply (publishing your view next to the original). The Associated Press, for example, says in its statement of news values that a correction must always be labelled as one, and that it does not use euphemisms such as “clarifies” or “fixes” when correcting a factual error. Why correction is the request most likely to succeed is set out in how publications handle corrections and whether you can request one.

Step 1: Identify the Exact Factual Error

Copy each sentence you object to into a document and write the correct fact beneath it. Codes of practice treat fact and opinion differently, so this step decides whether you have a correction request at all. Clause 1 of the UK Editors’ Code of Practice, in force since 1 January 2025, requires the press to correct a “significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion” promptly and with due prominence, but also says the press is free to editorialise and campaign as long as it distinguishes comment, conjecture and fact. The US SPJ Code of Ethics, revised on 4 October 2026, asks journalists to acknowledge mistakes, correct them promptly and prominently, and label opinion journalism and news analysis.

Sort each item into one of four groups:

• Factual error: a wrong number, date, name, job title, location, ownership detail, or a quote attributed to the wrong person. Correctable.
• Misleading or distorted: each fact is technically right but the combination states something false, for example a fine reported without the fact that it was overturned. Often correctable; the Editors’ Code names “misleading” and “distorted” information explicitly.
• Headline not supported by the text: clause 1(i) of the Editors’ Code covers this specifically.
• Opinion or characterisation: a columnist calling your pricing “aggressive”, or a reporter’s choice of what to emphasise. Not correctable as an error. Both IPSO’s regulations and the Guardian’s complaints policy say they may decline complaints that are an attempt to argue a point of view or to lobby.

Expected result: one to three items you can state as “the article says X; the fact is Y”. How to verify: a colleague who did not write the request agrees each item is a matter of fact, not tone. Common mistake: listing six complaints, four of which are opinion. Editors read the weakest item first and judge the request by it.

Step 2: Capture the Article and Gather Evidence

Save a dated copy of the article before you contact anyone, since articles can be updated quietly. Record the URL, headline, capture date and whether the error also ran in print. The Guardian’s complaints page asks for the article, its date, and whether it appeared in print or online, so collect those up front.

For each error, attach the best available proof. The strongest evidence is a document the publication can check without trusting you: a regulatory filing, a court record, a government register entry, a dated press release or statement that predates the article, or the reporter’s own correspondence showing what you told them. Your own assertion that something is wrong is not evidence. The standard is the one a fact-checker would apply, described in our explainer on how fact-checkers work and whether coverage would survive one.

Expected result: a folder holding the captured article and one piece of evidence per error. How to verify: each document, read alone, shows the correct fact with a date and source. Common mistake: attaching confidential material you would not want quoted. Assume anything you send can be referred to in an updated article.

Step 3: Find the Right Corrections Contact

Look for the publication’s corrections, standards or complaints page before writing to anyone. A request sent to the person whose job includes corrections is handled as routine work; one sent to a general inbox may never reach them. Search the site for “corrections”, “complaints”, “standards” or “readers’ editor”, and check the footer.

Published policies differ. As of October 2026:

If the publication names no contact, write to the reporter and copy the editor of the section that ran the story. For wire stories republished across many sites, go to the wire service first: AP’s policy is to push corrections to subscribers, so one fix at source can travel further than a dozen requests to individual sites.

Expected result: a named address or person. How to verify: the address appears on the publication’s own site, not a third-party directory. Common mistake: sending the request through an advertising or partnerships contact. Editorial and commercial teams are kept separate at most outlets, and a request routed through sales can look like pressure.

Step 4: Write and Send the Correction Request

Send a short, factual email that an editor can act on in a few minutes. Quote the error word for word, state the correct fact in one sentence, attach the evidence, and ask for a specific remedy: corrected text and a correction note. Keep it under 500 words; that is the Guardian’s stated limit, and a useful ceiling elsewhere.

A template you can adapt:

Subject: Correction request: "[Headline]" ([date published])

Dear [name / Corrections team],

I am [name, job title] at [Company]. I am writing about your article "[headline]", published [date] at [URL] ([online / print edition, page]).

The article contains [one / two] factual error(s):

1. The article says: "[exact sentence, quoted verbatim]".
   The correct fact is: [one sentence].
   Evidence: [document name, date, link or attachment].

2. [Repeat for each error. Do not list matters of opinion.]

I am asking you to correct the text and add a correction note, in line with your published corrections policy [or: clause 1 of the Editors' Code of Practice].

I am happy to provide anything else you need. I can be reached at [email / phone].

Thank you for considering this.

[Name]
[Title, Company]

Expected result: an automated acknowledgement or a reply from a named editor. How to verify: you have a sent copy with the date and attachments, and you have noted the date in a log. Common mistake: writing as a lawyer would. A request that reads as a legal threat can move from the newsroom to the legal department, as the New York Times handbook describes, where it stops being a quick editorial fix.

Step 5: Follow Up and Escalate Inside the Publication

Track the request against the publication’s own stated timelines, then follow up once, politely, if they pass. Where no timeline is published, a single follow-up after about a week is our suggestion, not a published standard.

If the reporter or desk declines, ask who has authority to review the decision. Typical internal routes are the section editor, a standards editor, or a readers’ editor or ombudsman. Some publications have a further stage: the Guardian directs unresolved complaints to its Review Panel, which it describes as an external review, and considers a request for review where the complaint reached the readers’ editor within four months of print publication or 12 months of online publication. At the BBC, the second stage is a further written complaint within 20 working days.

Expected result: a written decision from someone senior. How to verify: your log shows each contact, date and response. Common mistake: writing to several editors at once with slightly different versions of the complaint. It looks like a campaign and gives the publication inconsistent accounts to compare.

Step 6: Escalate to a Regulator or Use an Alternative Remedy

Check whether an independent body can consider the complaint once the publication has refused or failed to respond. What exists depends on the country and the publication.

UK press regulated by IPSO. Under IPSO’s Regulations, a complaint must be submitted to IPSO or to the publication within four months of the conduct or of first publication. A complaint made later but within 12 months of first publication can still be considered if the article remains accessible on the publication’s website and IPSO judges it can still investigate fairly. If you complained to the publication in time, IPSO may accept the complaint later while it is still being actively pursued. IPSO normally lets the publication’s own process run first: it begins its consideration when that process is exhausted, when the publication asks it to, or 28 days after notifying the publication. A complaint should include a copy of the article, an outline of the concerns by reference to the Editors’ Code, and supporting documents. IPSO can also accept complaints from third parties seeking to correct a significant inaccuracy. Check that the publication is an IPSO member before you file; not every UK outlet is.

BBC. The BBC’s regulator, Ofcom, may consider a complaint only after the BBC has replied in full, except for complaints of unfairness or privacy infringement against you, which can go to either the BBC or Ofcom first but not both.

US publications. The SPJ Code is guidance, and the code itself says it is not, and under the First Amendment cannot be, legally enforceable. Escalation in the US is usually within the publication.

Alternatives when a correction is refused. Ask for a published response or letter; clause 1(iii) of the Editors’ Code provides for a fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies when reasonably called for. Publish your own dated, factual statement on your website so there is an accurate source for readers, journalists and search engines. If the error is serious and the publication will not engage, a lawyer qualified in media law in the relevant country can tell you whether other options exist; this guide does not cover legal remedies.

Expected result: a regulator’s decision, a published reply, or your accurate account on the record. How to verify: you have IPSO’s or Ofcom’s acknowledgement, or a live URL for the reply or statement. Common mistake: publicising the dispute while a regulator is handling it. IPSO’s regulations say neither party should publish material provided to it during the complaint.

Step 7: Clean Up Copies, Search Snippets and AI Answers

Check every place the old wording still appears once the correction is live; a fix on one page does not update copies, snippets or AI summaries.

• Syndicated and republished copies. Search for a distinctive phrase from the wrong sentence. Send each republisher the corrected URL and the correction note. For wire copy, ask the wire whether it sent the correction to subscribers.
• Google search snippets. Google may show the old text in its result until it recrawls the page. For a page you do not own that has changed significantly, Google’s Refresh Outdated Content tool lets you request an update; you enter one or two words that were in the old snippet but are no longer on the live page. Google says processing can take a few days and the request status shows as Pending, Approved or Denied. The tool is not for pages that still contain the error. Timing for recrawls generally is covered in how long Google takes to show a fix.
• AI answers. AI assistants that search the web can pick up the corrected page, but answers drawn from older copies or from training data may not change. OpenAI’s ChatGPT search help says search results and citations can be incomplete, outdated or incorrect and suggests asking ChatGPT to search again using a specific source. For a wrong Google AI Overview, the AI Overviews help page describes using the thumbs-down icon and Report a problem. A full audit method is in how to check what ChatGPT, Perplexity and Gemini say about your company.

Expected result: the corrected wording is what appears on the original, on known copies, and in search results. How to verify: re-run the phrase search and the AI prompts a few weeks later and record the results. Common mistake: treating the correction email as the end of the job.

How to Choose the Right Route

How to Verify It Worked

• The article text now states the correct fact, and a correction note or update line describes the change and its date.
• You have the editor’s written confirmation, or a regulator’s decision, saved with your log.
• A search for a distinctive phrase from the old wording returns no live copies, or only copies you have already contacted.
• Google’s Refresh Outdated Content tool, if used, shows the request as Approved, and the search result snippet shows the new text.
• The prompts you used to check AI assistants return the corrected fact, or cite the corrected page, on re-check.

Common Problems and Fixes

What Not to Do

• Do not open with a legal threat. It can move the request to lawyers and slow everything down. Make the editorial request first.
• Do not ask for removal when a correction would fix the problem. Archive guidance from the Online News Association favours amending the original item and noting the update over taking it down; why removal rarely succeeds is covered in whether a placement can be removed and who controls that.
• Do not organise a pile-on. The BBC says the number of complaints does not change its assessment, and the Guardian says it may not respond to every complaint about the same issue.
• Do not use commercial relationships as leverage. Editorial and commercial teams are kept separate at most outlets; raising advertising spend in a correction request undermines it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources and Methodology

This guide is based on the published policies listed below, all read on 6 October 2026 unless noted. We did not submit correction requests to any publication or regulator while preparing it; response times quoted are the publications’ own stated targets, not measured outcomes. Policies change, so check the current version before relying on a deadline.

1. regulator Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, The Code (in force from 1 January 2025), clause 1 Accuracy. Cross-checked against IPSO’s Editors’ Code of Practice page via an archived copy dated 1 October 2026, because IPSO’s site blocked automated access.
2. regulator IPSO, IPSO Regulations 2024, regulations 8, 10, 11 and 13 and the complaints procedure annex. Read via an archived copy captured in May 2026; we could not load IPSO’s live complaints page.
3. standards Society of Professional Journalists, SPJ Code of Ethics, revised 4 October 2026.
4. publisher policy The Guardian, How to make a complaint about Guardian content, last modified 27 May 2026.
5. publisher policy BBC, How we handle your complaint.
6. publisher policy The New York Times, Ethical Journalism: A Handbook of Values and Practices, Accuracy and Corrections.
7. publisher policy The Associated Press, News Values and Principles: Telling the story, Corrections/Correctives.
8. publisher policy Reuters, Standards and values (Handbook of Journalism), Corrections and complaints.
9. standards Online News Association, Removing material from your archives.
10. official Google Search Console Help, Refresh Outdated Content tool.
11. official Google Search Help, AI Overviews in Google Search.
12. official OpenAI Help Center, Searching the web with ChatGPT.

Limitations. The policies quoted cover a small number of large English-language outlets; smaller publications may have no written policy. Regulators and time limits differ outside the UK. Nothing here is legal advice.