Even the most responsible newsrooms make mistakes. Facts change, people miscommunicate, and sometimes information available at the time turns out to be incomplete or inaccurate. But what matters just as much as getting it right is what happens when we don’t.
Accountability is crucial in journalism, and effective press regulation supports this goal. But what is the process when a correction or clarification is needed?
Why transparency builds trust
Trust in journalism hinges on accuracy. But when an error slips through, how a newsroom responds can either damage or strengthen that trust.
For regulated publications, like the Bedford Independent, transparency is not just a moral obligation; it’s a professional requirement. We believe that admitting and correcting mistakes demonstrates to readers that our standards are high and our processes are transparent.
Responsible journalism doesn’t mean never making an error. It means taking responsibility when we do.
What the Impress Standards Code says
As a member of Impress, the UK’s only officially recognised press regulator, the Bedford Independent adheres to its Standards Code, a detailed framework covering everything from accuracy to privacy.
Under the Code, publishers must, amongst other things:
- Have an easy-to-access complaints process that is clearly communicated
- Correct significant inaccuracies promptly, with due prominence
- Differentiate between comment, conjecture and fact
- Provide a fair opportunity to reply to significant claims
At the Bedford Independent, our complaints and corrections process is simple, visible and open to all. A clearly marked link in our menu on every page leads to our corrections process, where readers can learn how to request a correction, clarification or raise a concern.
We do not hide behind vague contact forms or buried details. We welcome feedback and are committed to responding professionally and promptly.
You can view our current complaints policy here, which includes full details of how to make a request and what you can expect in response.
While Impress is the only press regulator to be recognised by the Press Recognition Panel, it is one of two main UK press regulators.
The other is IPSO, which regulates many national and regional newspapers. While their approaches differ, both aim to uphold professional standards and provide a route for the public to seek redress.
What happens if a complaint goes to Impress
If someone believes we have breached the Impress Standards Code and is not satisfied with our response, they can escalate the issue directly to Impress for independent review.
Here’s what happens next:
- Initial assessment: Impress reviews the complaint and determines whether it falls within their remit.
- Publisher response: We are invited to respond formally to the complaint, including evidence of any action already taken.
- Investigation: If the issue proceeds, Impress may conduct a deeper investigation, reviewing all correspondence, the article in question, and the application of the Code.
- Decision: A ruling is published online. If we are found to have breached the Code, we are required to publish a correction, apology, or other remedy with appropriate prominence.
- Transparency: All complaints and rulings are logged on the Impress website for public view, supporting accountability across the industry.
This process is free and open to the public. It protects the rights of readers and provides an independent pathway to redress. Something impossible with unregulated publishers.
How we respond when something goes wrong
At the Bedford Independent, we have a clear and structured process in place if an article is found to contain a factual inaccuracy, misleading presentation, or a lack of necessary context.
- We assess the issue internally: Every concern raised by a reader, subject, or third party is reviewed by a senior editor, often with reference to the Standards Code.
- We correct or clarify: If the issue is clear-cut, we amend the online article, include a footnote explaining the change, and, when appropriate, signal the correction on social media.
- We log the change: We maintain an internal record of all corrections and clarifications for transparency and learning.
- We respond to the complainant: Anyone raising a concern receives a reply, outlining how it has been addressed and what action has been taken.
If the complainant remains unsatisfied, they are directed to Impress for an impartial ruling.
Examples of our approach
In the past, we’ve issued clarifications where a headline overstated a claim made by a source, or where new information emerged that changed the understanding of an incident after publication. In such cases, a note is added to the article explaining the context and date of the change.
We’ve also proactively updated articles when official statements were made after publication.
We don’t remove articles unless legally required to do so, or our standards code requires us to do so for privacy and the right to be forgotten.
Usually, we clearly and publicly correct the record, because trust can’t be built behind closed doors.
Bedford Ian and the power of the Bedford Mayor
An example of this occurred when our satirical column, Bedford Ian, made an error in describing how the office of the elected mayor of Bedford Borough would acquire new powers.
A complainant suggested the wording would lead readers to believe that the mayor was forcing these changes, when in fact the changes had been recommended by a council committee to bring Bedford Borough Council’s constitution in line with the law.
Despite the complaint being received on a Saturday evening, an editor reviewed it and agreed that the wording created an inaccurate description of the situation.
An amendment was made, and a note was put on the article in question within 24 hours of the initial complaint.
To date (31 May 2025), the Bedford Independent has had just one complaint reach Impress and none have been upheld.
Why corrections don’t mean failure
It’s natural for readers to be sceptical when they see a correction. But in a regulated newsroom, that correction is a sign of strength, not weakness. It demonstrates that checks and balances are in place and that journalists are willing to be held accountable.
When a story is corrected, clarified, or updated with new information, it makes the original reporting more robust, not less. News is a process, not a product. And in a fast-moving world, transparency matters just as much as speed.
Equally important is that anyone, from a public official to a private citizen, can easily submit a correction request or complaint. We don’t hide behind barely visible links or indirect contact methods.
If we’ve got something wrong, we want to hear about it, and we want to make it right.
Trust is built by what we do next
At the Bedford Independent, we know that trust can’t be taken for granted. It’s earned story by story and, sometimes, correction by correction.
That’s why we don’t shy away from holding others to account and why we’re equally committed to holding ourselves to the highest possible standards.
Because when journalists are trusted to be accurate, fair and open, everyone benefits.
This article is part of a series to help support media literacy.
