How we report, source, and correct

Every report names where the information came from. That sentence belongs in the first lines, not in a footnote.

When a story rests on one outlet's reporting, the copy says so immediately — the way our pieces on the U.S. president's assessment of an Iran peace proposal, on Ukraine's warning about a new Russian offensive, and on the Shipley Do-Nuts expansion into Ohio all open by naming the source. When two outlets carried the same development, we say that too, and we say which of them reported it first. When Reuters or the Associated Press is the origin of a figure or a sequence, the credit sits in the sentence that carries it.

The rule exists for a practical reason. Attribution is the only thing that lets you check us, and a reader who cannot see where a claim came from has no way to weigh it. Naming the source also keeps us honest about how thin a story may be: if the whole thing rests on one wire report, that is visible to everyone who reads it.

We do not launder an outlet's exclusive into our own voice, and we do not aggregate four versions of the same wire item into something that reads like original reporting. If our contribution is the framing, the context or the follow-up question, that is what the piece claims to be.

Analysis is allowed here and always labelled. When a report explains why a public warning from Kyiv functions as a message to allies as much as to its own public, that reading is presented as interpretation. It is not smuggled into the sentence as fact, and it does not set the terms for the reporting around it.

The separation is enforced in both directions. We do not run unsigned opinion as news, and an editorial line never dictates the facts in a straight report. If a piece contains both reporting and argument, the argument is marked at the point where it starts, so a reader who wants only the record knows where to stop.

That matters most on the beats where readers arrive with a view already formed — elections, court outcomes, a franchise announcement. The Shipley Do-Nuts coverage is a fair test case: a company announcement is identified as a company announcement, and any assessment of it is kept separate from the terms the company itself stated.

Limits

What we do not publish

These are the lines that hold whether or not a story would be stronger without them.

• Quotes we cannot trace to a person who said them Refused
• Numbers presented as measured when they are estimated Refused
• Forecasts written as though the outcome has happened Refused
• Casualty figures with no attributable source Refused
• Anonymous sourcing used to carry a factual claim on its own Refused
• A single exclusive treated as settled before anyone matches it Refused

Independence

Commercial relationships, and the Shipley Do-Nuts beat

The publication is editorially independent. Nothing on the consumer desk is exempt from the sourcing rules above.

Franchise reporting is where independence is easiest to lose, because the announcements arrive pre-written and eager to be repeated. Our Shipley Do-Nuts coverage — the Cincinnati agreement, the anniversary promotions, the brand's expansion plans — follows the same rules as a diplomatic story. A company announcement is identified as such. Where we add context from filings, local licensing records or other outlets, the addition is attributed to whichever of those sources it came from, and the reader can see which part of the piece is the company's own account.

If we ever publish sponsored material, it will be labelled clearly and kept out of the news sections. Sponsored copy will not appear in the world, politics, economy, justice or consumer feeds, and it will not be credited to a reporter. As things stand, we publish no sponsored material, and this paragraph exists so that the rule is on the record before it is ever needed.

Push back

How readers can challenge us

Readers catch things reporters miss, particularly at the local level. If you know of a deal document, a court filing, or a promotion term that contradicts or extends something we published, send it. The Contact page explains what to include so the tip is usable, and the archive lets you see how we covered the same subject previously.