Religious Liberty TV

Effective Date: June 1, 2008 · Last reviewed July 29, 2026

---

Our commitment

We cover constitutional litigation, legislation, and religious freedom disputes in which precision is not a courtesy — it is the whole value of the reporting. A misstated holding, a misattributed quotation, or a case cited to the wrong court can travel further than the ruling itself.

We will correct every material error, promptly, in public, and on the record. We do not quietly revise. We do not delete. When we get something wrong, the correction stays attached to the article permanently, so that any reader encountering the piece later encounters the correction with it.

What we correct

We treat the following as errors requiring a published correction:

• Factual errors — names, dates, titles, places, numbers, party affiliations, organizational descriptions.
• Citation errors — an incorrect case name, reporter citation, docket number, court, or date of decision.
• Mischaracterized holdings — describing what a court decided in a way the opinion does not support; conflating a holding with dicta; attributing a concurrence or dissent to the majority; misstating the vote.
• Procedural errors — confusing a cert grant with a merits ruling, a preliminary injunction with a final judgment, a panel decision with an en banc decision, a remand with a reversal, or a stay with a decision on the merits.
• Misquotation — any quotation from an opinion, brief, statute, filing, hearing, or interview subject that does not match the source.
• Misattribution — assigning a statement, position, or filing to the wrong person, judge, court, agency, or organization.
• Statutory and regulatory errors — misstating the text, scope, effective date, or current status of a law, bill, rule, or executive action.
• Errors in headlines, subheadings, captions, photo credits, and video descriptions, which are corrected on the same terms as body text.

Corrections, clarifications, updates, retractions

We distinguish four responses, and we label them.

Correction. The article contained a material factual error. We fix the text and append a dated correction note describing what was wrong and what it now says.

Clarification. The article was accurate but imprecise, incomplete, or open to a reasonable misreading. We sharpen the language and append a dated clarification note.

Update. No error occurred; the story developed. A court ruled, a bill advanced, a party responded. We add the new material and append a dated update note. Updates are not corrections and are never labeled as such.

Retraction. The article’s central claim cannot be substantiated, or its foundation has collapsed. We do not remove the article. We retain it at its original address, strike through or clearly mark the retracted material, and place a prominent retraction notice at the top explaining what failed and why. Removing a discredited article erases the public record of our own error, which is the opposite of accountability.

Purely mechanical fixes — a typo, a broken link, a formatting glitch, a misspelling that cannot change meaning — are corrected without a note. If a misspelling could change meaning, such as a party’s or judge’s name, it gets a note.

How to request a correction

Anyone may request a correction. You do not need to be a subject of the article.

Email [corrections@religiousliberty.tv] with:

1. The headline and URL of the article
2. The specific passage at issue, quoted or described
3. What you believe is incorrect, and what the correct information is
4. Any supporting source — an opinion, docket entry, transcript, filing, official statement, or public record

Requests may also be sent to the postal address at the foot of this page or submitted through our [contact page].

You may request a correction anonymously, and we will evaluate it on the evidence. We will not publish your identity in a correction notice without your consent.

How we handle requests

Acknowledgment within two business days. A named editor takes ownership of the request.

Verification against primary sources. We check the claim against the underlying document — the slip opinion or official reporter, the docket, the enrolled bill text, the agency notice, the hearing transcript, the recording. Secondary coverage is not sufficient to establish or refute a disputed fact. Where a quotation is at issue, we check it against the source text or original recording, not against our notes.

Resolution within five business days for straightforward matters. Where verification requires obtaining a sealed or unpublished document, contacting a court clerk, or seeking comment from a party, we may need longer; if so, we will tell you the reason and the expected timeline rather than letting the request go quiet.

A response either way. If we correct, we tell you what we changed. If we decline, we tell you why, and we point you to the source we relied on. A good-faith disagreement about interpretation is not an error, and we will say so plainly rather than issuing a correction we do not believe is warranted. Disagreement with a legal analysis, a characterization we can support, or an editorial judgment is not grounds for a correction — though we will publish substantive responses as letters or replies where the exchange serves readers.

How corrections appear

• The URL never changes. A corrected article stays at its original address. We do not republish revised articles under new links, which would break citations, orphan the correction, and misrepresent the piece as new.
• Corrections are appended at the foot of the article, in a visually distinct block, dated and timestamped.
• Significant corrections and all retractions appear at the top, above the article text, where a reader cannot miss them.
• The correction states the substance, not merely that a change occurred. “An earlier version stated the Ninth Circuit heard the case en banc. A three-judge panel decided it.” — not “This article has been updated.”
• The modification date is updated in the article metadata whenever substantive changes are made.
• The original error is described, not erased. A reader should be able to tell from the notice what we got wrong.
• Corrections to headlines are noted in the same block, quoting the original headline.

Corrections in other formats

Social media. If an error appeared in a post, we correct it in a reply to the original post and, where the error is material, delete and repost with the correction noted. We do not silently delete.

Newsletters and email. A correction runs in the next scheduled edition, and where the error is significant, in a standalone notice.

Video and audio. We annotate the description with a dated correction and, where the error is material, add an on-screen or spoken correction in a subsequent segment. We do not re-cut published video to conceal an error.

Syndicated and republished work. Where an article carrying an error has been republished elsewhere with our permission, we notify the republishing outlet.

Third-party and contributed content

Corrections to guest commentary, op-eds, and contributed analysis follow this same policy. The author is consulted, but the decision to correct rests with our editors. Corrections to wire or syndicated material we have republished are applied on our site as soon as the originating outlet issues them, or independently where we identify the error first.

Appeals

If you believe a correction request was wrongly declined or inadequately handled, write to [editor@religiousliberty.tv], addressed to [EDITOR NAME], [TITLE]. Appeals receive an independent review by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, with a response within ten business days.

Accountability

Our error rate is a measure we take seriously. Editors review corrections quarterly to identify patterns — sourcing gaps, verification steps being skipped, beats under time pressure — and adjust practice accordingly.