Corrections and Clarifications

The Rio Times corrects errors of fact promptly and in the open. This page is the permanent record of those corrections. It exists so that readers, and the people we write about, can see what we got wrong and what we did about it.

Our full editorial approach is set out in Editorial Standards.

Report an error

Email [email protected] with the headline or link, the passage in question, and what you believe the correct position to be. Supporting documents or official sources are welcome and speed things up considerably.

We acknowledge reports and tell you the outcome, whether or not we end up changing the article.

How we handle errors

We use four labels, and we apply them consistently.

Correction. A fact was wrong. We amend the article and add a dated note explaining what was wrong and what is right.

Clarification. Nothing was factually incorrect, but the wording was open to a reading we did not intend. We sharpen the wording and, where the point is material, add a note.

Update. The article was accurate when published, but events have moved. We add the development and date it.

Retraction. The central claim does not stand. We say so prominently at the top of the article, remove or rewrite the claim, and explain why.

The standards we hold ourselves to

Promptness. We correct as soon as we have established the position, not when it is convenient.

Prominence. A correction should be at least as visible as the error. Where a headline, summary or social description carried the mistake, those are changed too, not only the body text.

Permanence. Correction notes stay on the article. We do not remove them once the fuss dies down.

Preserved links. We keep the original web address so that anyone arriving from an old link or a search result reaches the corrected article rather than a dead page.

No silent deletion. We do not quietly unpublish an article to make a problem disappear. If something must come down, we say that it has and why.

Right of reply. Where we have reported a serious allegation about an identifiable person, company or sector, they are entitled to respond, and we will carry that response.

Corrections log

Correction · 18 July 2026

“Cocaine Hidden in Timber Points to Brazil’s Biggest-Ever Bust” — published 23 June 2026

What we published. We reported that Brazilian authorities had seized timber containing large quantities of liquid cocaine, described the method as established, and linked the case to a related seizure in Chile. Our headline and summary stated an unconfirmed preliminary finding as fact.

What was wrong. Laboratory analysis in both Chile and Brazil found no cocaine. Bolivia’s Attorney General has described the initial readings as a false positive, and stated that examinations by the IDIF and international laboratories found no narcotics in the retained wood. Chilean prosecutors closed their investigation on 16 July 2026 and the cargo was released. No one was arrested in the Brazilian case. The article also carried a claim that American agencies had traced the cargo to a production site in Bolivia, for which we could find no support.

What we did. We rewrote the article and added a permanent editor’s note, replaced the headline, search title and summary, removed the unsupported claim and said so, and added named sourcing where the piece previously had none. We published a separate article reporting the outcome and the cost to Bolivia’s forestry sector. The original web address is unchanged.

How it came to light. The error was raised with us by a member of the affected timber trade. We should have followed the case to its conclusion ourselves.

Read the corrected article · Read the follow-up

Corrections are listed most recent first. This log begins on 18 July 2026; corrections made before that date were applied to the articles themselves.