Publishing Standards & Corrections

Publishing Standards

The Radio Free Hub City Transparency Pledge

• We prioritize the record over the rumor. We believe you are smart enough to read a court document or an ethics letter for yourself.
• We show our work. Whenever feasible, we will reference or link directly to the primary sources we used to build our stories. Please note that many of our stories are based on press releases emailed directly to us from local, state, and federal agencies, so linking is not always possible.
• We are accountable to you. If we make a mistake, we will acknowledge it openly and correct it promptly in the relevant article.
• We value data over drama. Our goal isn’t to tell you how to feel, but to give you the raw information you need to decide for yourself.

RFHC Publishing Standards

1. Editorial Integrity

• All news articles (excluding clearly labeled opinions) uphold a fact-first, unbiased perspective based solely on primary evidence. When possible, these articles should outline the impact for local readers.
• Every article undergoes editorial review for accuracy and adherence to these standards.

2. Sources & Attribution

• We attribute each fact to its original primary source (e.g., government press releases, official statements, meeting agendas).
• Only sources directly used in reporting are cited in the article.
  • We publish statistics and financial data as provided to us by local, state, and federal agencies. While we will attempt to validate the numbers if something seems off, it’s important to note that reporting these numbers’ primary intention is to inform the reader that’s what the agency is saying. For example, if the fire marshal states a certain dollar amount damage is estimated in a fire, or law enforcement agency states X number of people were arrested, we will report that is the data being provided by the respective agency.

3. Fact Verification

• Reporters may review secondary outlets to identify conflicting accounts or additional context—but only after drafting from primary sources.
• Secondary outlets that inform fact checks are not catalogued or cited if their material is not used.

4. No “Works Consulted” Lists

• We do not publish exhaustive lists of outlets reviewed for fact checking after article draft, but not quoted or relied upon.
• This practice aligns with industry norms at AP, Reuters, and similar organizations.
  • Recently we were requested to include a list of locations for information we “checked” against our own articles. We hope this helps clarify our stance on such matters and why we won’t be doing this. If you want further information on industry standards please review the standards used by Reuters and AP, in which they will only publish a works cited for source material used.

5. Corrections Policy

• Corrections are made promptly when supported by verifiable primary evidence.
• Unsubstantiated or repetitive requests lacking original sources may be declined.
• Readers can submit corrections (with primary-source documentation) to the editor.

6. Nonpartisan Coverage

• News stories remain nonpartisan; opinion and satire pieces are explicitly labeled.
• Feedback or accusations of bias must include factual support from primary sources; bad-faith complaints may not be addressed. Repeated bad-faith complaints will likely result in being blocked.

7. Conflict of Interest & Authorship

• Contributors are not affiliated with political committees or campaigns, except guest opinion submissions which are clearly labeled as such.
• Any actual or potential conflicts of interest are disclosed within the article.

8. Anonymous Sources

• Used sparingly and only when necessary to protect safety or privacy.
• Anonymity must be justified, documented in editorial notes, and approved by an editor.

9. AI & Syndicated Content

• AI may assist with drafting headlines, outlines, and formatting; all AI-generated content is reviewed and extensively edited by humans.
• Syndicated or white-label content must comply with RFHC standards and conflict-of-interest disclosures.
• Syndicated content must always be appropriately labeled that it is republished with permission.

10. Editorial Discretion

• RFHC reserves the right to select or decline coverage.
• Suggestions for coverage require primary-source submissions; harassment or undue pressure will be disregarded.

Use of Syndicated and Republished Content

In accordance with appropriate licensing agreements, RFHC utilizes syndicated and republished content from multiple sources, including but not limited to:

• States Newsroom
• The Conversation
• Daily Caller News Foundation

All syndicated or republished content will be clearly marked as such. RFHC is not responsible for the content or views expressed in that third party content.

Corrections

RFHC strives for factual accuracy in all published articles, and takes any reports of incorrect information seriously.

Please contact the editor, Ken Buckler with any factual corrections (including original source), and they will be addressed promptly.

Note that simply providing us a link to a different news site will not be sufficient, as we must base our corrections on original sources, not other news outlets (who may have published incorrect information themselves). Examples of legitimate factual errors:

• Historical Inaccuracy: Claiming that the American Civil War ended in 1863 instead of 1865.
• Scientific Misrepresentation: Stating that water boils at 100°F (instead of 100°C or 212°F) at sea level.
• Geographical Error: Saying that Sydney is the capital of Australia when the capital is Canberra.
• Biographical Mistake: Reporting that Albert Einstein was born in 1901 instead of 1879.
• Statistical Error: Asserting that the population of Tokyo is 3 million instead of the correct figure.
• Misquoting: Attributing a quote to Abraham Lincoln that was actually said by Mark Twain.
• Financial Inaccuracy: Reporting that Apple’s revenue in 2020 was $100 billion instead of the correct figure.

Examples which are not factual errors:

• Opinion Statements: “I believe that chocolate ice cream is the best flavor.” This is subjective and not a factual claim.
• Interpretative Differences: “This article doesn’t align with my interpretation of the events.” Different interpretations are not factual errors.
• Value Judgments: “This policy is the most effective way to address crime.” This is a value judgment and not a factual statement.
• Predictions or Speculations: “I think the stock market will rise next year.” This is a speculative statement, not a factual one.
• Preferences: “I prefer reading fiction over non-fiction.” Preferences are subjective and not subject to factual accuracy.
• Personal Experiences: “In my experience, this product works very well.” Personal experiences can vary and are not inherently factual errors.
• Philosophical Beliefs: “Life has no inherent meaning.” This is a philosophical belief, not a factual claim.
• Food Choices: “Pineapple does not belong on pizza.” This is an accurate statement, but unfortunately some disagree.