Detecting AI hallucinations in news copy requires a different reading posture than standard editing. Instead of reading for flow and style, an editor checking for AI errors reads for evidence: every factual claim should have a traceable source. Claims that cannot be traced — regardless of how plausible they sound — should be treated as suspected hallucinations until verified.
Detection: The "Source Every Claim" Protocol
Read the article with a highlighter (digital or physical). Mark every factual claim. Then, working through the list, require a source link for each. Claims with sources: verify that the source actually contains the stated fact. Claims without sources: query three independent fact-checking engines. Unverified claims that cannot be sourced within a reasonable time: delete before publication.
Correction Workflow
When a hallucination is found in an already-published article: 1) issue a correction notice at the top of the article, 2) remove or correct the hallucinated content, 3) add the correct information with a source link, 4) update the article metadata (dateModified), 5) submit the corrected URL to Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools. For significant errors, a standalone correction article creates a permanent searchable record of the correction — the highest-trust correction format.
Prevention Is Better Than Correction
Every post-publication correction is far more costly than pre-publication prevention. A 30-minute fact-check before publication is worth avoiding the reputational damage of a public correction, which takes an average of 14 days to propagate through the AI systems that have already indexed the erroneous version.