Editorial Policy
The rules we hold ourselves to, published openly so you can hold us to them too.
This policy governs how analysis is researched, written, edited, and corrected at The Analysis. It applies equally to staff analysts and outside contributors.
1. Source Every Claim
Every factual statement must trace to a named, citable source β government data, court records, official statements, peer-reviewed research, or an on-record interview. Anonymous sourcing is permitted only for matters of genuine public interest where on-record sourcing is unsafe or unavailable, and must be disclosed as such to the reader.
2. Separate Analysis From Advocacy
We interpret data and explain implications; we do not campaign for outcomes. Where a piece presents a normative judgment, it is clearly framed as analysis rather than disguised as neutral reporting.
3. Present Competing Evidence
On genuinely contested questions, our analysts are expected to engage seriously with the strongest version of opposing evidence and arguments, not the weakest one.
4. Correct Errors Transparently
When a factual error is identified post-publication, it is corrected promptly and the correction is noted on the article itself rather than silently edited away.
5. Disclose Conflicts of Interest
Analysts disclose any financial, professional, or personal interest relevant to a topic they cover. Where a conflict cannot be adequately disclosed, the assignment is reassigned.
6. Independent Editorial Judgment
No advertiser, political entity, or external stakeholder has input into editorial decisions, story selection, or conclusions.
Accuracy is not a department here. It is the entire product.
Reporting a Concern
If you believe an article fails to meet these standards, you can flag it via our Contribute page, or read how our Fact Check Desk verifies claims before publication.