Put It Right
When we get something wrong, we say so plainly and publish the correction where readers will find it. This page describes how News Drift Spark handles factual errors, unclear wording, missing context, and updates to developing stories. It is not a complaints desk for editorial disagreement; it is a record of how we repair the record.
Our corrections policy applies to all material published on this portal: daily slate entries, reading rails, picture desk captions, and any syndicated excerpts we carry with permission. We treat corrections as part of the published work, not as footnotes buried on a separate page nobody reads.
What counts as a correction
A correction is required when published material contains a factual error: a wrong date, an incorrect name or title, a misquoted figure, a location given incorrectly, or a description that does not match what occurred. We also publish clarifications when the original text was technically accurate but misleading through omission, ambiguous phrasing, or outdated context that remained on the page after events moved on.
We distinguish between corrections and updates. An update adds new information to a developing story without implying the earlier version was wrong. A correction acknowledges that something previously stated was incorrect or incomplete in a way that could mislead a reasonable reader. When both apply, we publish a correction note and fold the new information into the body of the piece.
How we publish corrections
Every correction appears at the top of the affected article in a visible correction block. The block states what was wrong, what is correct, and when the change was made. We retain the original error in the correction note where doing so aids transparency; we do not silently rewrite paragraphs without acknowledgment.
Material corrections — those affecting the central claim of a piece — also receive a line on the daily slate for the day they are published, so regular readers see that something has been amended. Minor corrections, such as a spelling error in a secondary name or a broken internal link description, are logged on the article itself and summarised in our weekly corrections round-up when applicable.
We aim to publish substantiated corrections within two working days of verification. Complex matters involving multiple sources, legal review, or ongoing inquiries may take longer; when they do, we note on the original article that a correction is pending and give a reason without compromising source confidentiality.
How to report an error
Send a concise description of the error to [email protected] with the article title, the URL, and the passage you believe is wrong. Include any supporting documents or links you can share. We do not require a particular form; we do not operate a web form on this site. A plain email is sufficient.
We read every message. We may reply to ask for clarification or additional material. We do not promise to agree with every report; we do promise to investigate claims that specify what is wrong and why. Vague accusations without reference to published text are unlikely to result in a correction, though they may still inform our internal review.
Kerb policy list
The following rules govern how corrections appear across the portal. They are applied consistently by the desk editor and recorded in our internal log.
- Corrections are never deleted once published; they remain attached to the article permanently.
- The correction block appears above the article body, below the headline and dateline.
- We name the desk or editor responsible for the verification when practicable.
- We do not change quotes without indicating that the quote itself was wrong or misattributed.
- Photograph corrections include a revised caption and, where necessary, replacement or withdrawal of the image.
- Corrections to syndicated material are coordinated with the originating desk before publication.
- We link from the correction block to this page and to our sourcing ladder when the error relates to verification method.
- Repeated errors on the same topic trigger an internal review of the relevant desk procedure.
Relationship to sourcing
Most errors we correct trace back to a step in our verification chain: a source misremembered a detail, a document was misread, or two accounts conflicted and we weighted them incorrectly. Our sourcing ladder describes the five steps we use before publication. When a correction reveals a gap in that ladder, we update the internal checklist and, where useful to readers, note the change in the back room.
We do not republish unverified counter-claims simply because someone disagrees with our reporting. We correct facts. We do not grant equal prominence to speculation offered without evidence. That distinction is editorial, not evasive, and we explain it when readers ask.
Transparency and limits
We maintain a running log of corrections published each month. The log is available on request to readers who email the desk. We do not publish the log automatically on this page because it duplicates the correction blocks on individual articles; we may add a summary index in future if reader demand warrants it.
We cannot correct material we did not publish. Links to external sites may break or change without our knowledge; we update or remove dead links when notified but we do not control third-party content. For errors in material syndicated from partner desks, we publish our correction and notify the partner of the amended text.
News Drift Spark is an independent news portal. We describe our methods openly; we do not promise particular outcomes from any story. Corrections are part of that honesty. If you believe we owe you one, write to us with specifics and we will put it right.
