Thomson PR operatives around the globe moved quickly yesterday to deny a story in the Financial Times that stated the company was considering selling its education division.

The Toronto-based company demanded that the FT correct the online version of the story, which is available in full only through the FT.com subscription service. The story was headlined "Thomson considers education disposals" in yesterday's print edition, and is now headlined online "Thomson mulls moves into new sectors".

No correction or clarification was printed in today's London edition of the FT, although an expanded version of the printed article is freely available through the FT's affiliate, MSNBC.

A Thomson spokesperson told IWR the original news story was "incorrect and erroneous". At the briefing with ceo Richard Harrington, he claimed, "nothing was said, mentioned or implied" that Thomson wanted to sell the entire division.

The incident once again raises questions over policies about publishing online. If a news organisation gets something wrong, should they submit to pressure from reputation management operatives to replace the original article with corrected versions?

Alternatively, should a news organsiation have policies in place to formalise Corrections and Clarification procedures that link to the original story? And would those policies appease those whose job it is to bully news organisations into rewriting copy in ways they approve?

We'll keep you posted.