Editorial Standards & Ethics

Why we publish these standards

A reader sees only the finished page, never the work behind it. This document describes that work: how we source, how we write headlines, how we keep news and opinion apart, and what we refuse to do for a story or for money. We publish it so you can hold us to it, and so that when we fall short you have a written standard to point at rather than a vague sense that something was off.

These rules apply across all ten of our sections. A gaming story and a world news story are held to the same sourcing bar, because a reader who trusts one page of MIND CRON has no way of knowing which desk produced it and should not need to. They are the floor on a bad day, not aspirations for a good one.

Sourcing

Every factual claim in a report should be traceable to a source, and where we can show that source we do, with a link to the document, the filing, the transcript or the dataset. We prefer primary sources to summaries of them and named sources to anonymous ones. When we build on reporting that originated elsewhere, we say where it came from rather than laundering it as our own.

A press release is a claim by an interested party, and it is treated as one. A company’s announcement of its own results, a government’s description of its own policy and a studio’s account of its own release are starting points for a story, not the story.

Anonymity

We grant anonymity only when the information matters, when we cannot get it another way, and when naming the person would expose them to real harm. Anonymity is a shield for the source, not a licence for the reporter, and it is never a way to slip an unverified claim into print without owning it.

A single anonymous source is rarely enough for a serious allegation. We look for corroboration, we tell readers as much as we safely can about why the source is in a position to know, and where fairness demands it we go to the subject for a response before publishing.

Accuracy and verification

Being fast is worth nothing if we are wrong, and on a breaking story the two pull against each other constantly. Our answer is to publish what we can stand behind and to say plainly what we do not yet know. We do not fill a gap in the facts with a confident guess dressed as reporting. The mechanics of checking a claim before it goes live are in our fact-checking policy, and what happens when a check fails after publication is in our corrections policy.

Numbers get particular care, because a number carries an authority that a sentence does not. We check figures against the original, we watch the difference between a rate and a total, and we say which currency and which unit we mean, since a reader in one country cannot be expected to guess the conventions of another.

Headlines, images and captions

For most readers the headline is the whole article, so we treat it as part of the report and hold it to the same standard. A headline must be supported by the story beneath it. It may be sharp, but it may not claim more than the reporting earns, and it may not turn a maybe into a certainty for the sake of a click. If the story says a deal is being discussed, the headline does not say it is done.

The same rule covers images, captions and social posts. A striking photograph that misleads about what a story shows is a false headline in another form. Archive or illustrative images are labelled as such, and we do not present footage from one event as though it were from another.

Keeping news and opinion apart

News reporting and opinion are different products and we label them so. A report tells you what happened and attributes its claims. A column or a review tells you what a writer makes of it, and it is marked as opinion or review so you are never in doubt. Analysis, where we run it, is reporting-led interpretation and is presented as such rather than smuggled into a straight news story.

Writers keep their personal views out of their reporting, including on social media where the line is easiest to blur. Wanting an outcome is not a crime; letting it bend the facts in a news story is. Our job is to give readers accurate material to reach their own conclusions with, not to reach those conclusions for them under a news label.

Fairness and the right of reply

When we report an allegation or a criticism of a person or an organisation, we give them a fair chance to respond before publishing, and we carry the response fairly rather than as an afterthought at the bottom. If someone declines to comment, we say so. If they respond after publication, we add it. Fairness is not false balance: we do not manufacture an equivalence between a well-evidenced fact and a baseless denial.

Harm, privacy and dignity

We weigh harm against public interest, particularly around private individuals, grief, children, and survivors of violence. Being able to publish something is not the same as needing to. We identify people caught up in a story only when there is a real reason to, we handle graphic material with care, and we treat the dignity of people who did not choose to be in the news as something that has to be actively set aside for a reason, not assumed away.

Because we write for readers in many countries, we are careful with cultural, religious and national generalisations, and we do not describe any group as the default from which others differ.

Independence from money and power

What we cover and how we cover it is decided by the editorial team: not by advertisers, not by the powerful subjects of our stories, and not by anyone offering access in exchange for a softer line. No advertiser sees a story before it publishes, no sponsored content exists on the site, and a company that appears in a banner here is reported on as if it never had. The full arrangement is on our ownership and funding page and our advertise page.

We do not accept paid trips, gifts, review units with strings attached, or favours that could buy a slant. Where a writer has a personal or financial interest in a subject, they declare it and step aside.

Plagiarism, fabrication and how to complain

Plagiarism and fabrication are firing matters, not slips to be smoothed over. Invented quotes, invented sources and copied text end a working relationship with MIND CRON on the day they are found. These standards are reviewed as the team grows, and readers who think we have breached one should write to support@mindcron.com and quote the line we broke.

Last updated: September 2026