Where the correction belongs
Source A: Put the correction where the mistake was read — an original local-news reader commentary
When our local news site corrects an error, I would like the change explained beside the original article. A separate corrections page is useful, but readers who saw the first account may never visit it. Someone arriving through an old shared link should be able to discover that an important detail changed without already knowing that a correction exists.
The explanation need not repeat every careless sentence. It could identify the point which was wrong, give the accurate information and show when the change was made. Quietly replacing a sentence may improve the text for the next reader while leaving earlier readers unaware that the account they remember has become unreliable. A visible note recognises that a report has a history.
This matters for trust. I do not expect a newsroom never to make a mistake. I want to know whether it can acknowledge one clearly enough for a reader to understand its significance. Treating every revision as though nothing happened can make the corrected version look more certain than the reporting process deserved. An honest explanation could be more reassuring than the appearance of uninterrupted perfection.
There should be distinctions. Fixing a spelling slip is not the same as changing who did something or what an event meant. We do not need a crowded list of every small adjustment attached to every paragraph. Editors should explain the approach and use judgement about material changes. Keep the record useful and readable, while making sure significant corrections can be found where people encounter the story. The site should also consider people who received the earlier version through its own messages, rather than assume changing one page automatically reaches everybody who relied on the first account.
Source B: Correct the error without keeping it alive — an original response from a news editor
A clear correction is important, and I agree that readers should not have to solve a puzzle to find it. My concern is how much of the original mistake the correction repeats. If the error concerned a person, a large explanatory panel could keep drawing attention to an account we now know was wrong. Visibility should help readers reach the accurate version, not make the false detail the most memorable part of it.
A record of changes can also become difficult to navigate. An article may receive new information, clearer wording and a correction at different times. Calling all three a correction could imply that every development proves the earlier report was careless. Calling them all updates could conceal a genuine mistake. The labels need meanings which the newsroom follows consistently and readers can understand.
We should consider how a story travels. A headline, a short message and the article itself may have supplied different versions. A note on the page will not necessarily reach somebody who read only the original message. Where practical, use the same route to draw attention to an important correction, while keeping the wording proportionate. Do not promise that every shared copy can be recalled or that every reader will see the follow-up.
I support an accessible corrections record alongside clear notes on relevant articles. Editors should decide what information is necessary to repair understanding and avoid unnecessary repetition of the error. Explain the reason for a material change, distinguish it from ordinary additions and give readers a route to report concerns. We can review whether people understand the corrected account, not simply count the notices published. Trust depends on the accuracy and care of the repair as well as the willingness to display that a repair took place.
Write an article for a media-literacy newsletter evaluating how a local news site should present corrections and recommending an approach.
Use your own words and base your response on both sources. In your response:
Write about 250 to 350 words. Up to 10 marks are available for reading and up to 25 marks for writing.
100 exam-style questions on CIE IGCSE English Language 5.2 Section A Directed Writing (40 marks), covering 5.2.1 Question structure and stimulus texts, 5.2.2 Question 1(a) analysis and evaluation of the text(s), and 5.2.3 Question 1(b) directed writing task. Each one has a worked solution and a mark scheme showing where the marks go.