Our credibility is our most valuable asset — and the foundation of our ability to hold power accountable. These standards govern how we gather, verify, and publish information, how we protect our sources, and how we hold ourselves accountable when we fall short.
These eight principles govern every piece of journalism we produce — original investigations, curated reporting, analysis, and commentary alike.
Every factual claim must be verified by at least two independent, credible sources. Statistics are traced to their original source — never secondary reporting. We do not publish claims we cannot independently verify. When we are uncertain, we say so explicitly.
Subjects of critical coverage are given a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication — typically 48–72 hours for breaking news, longer for investigations. We present multiple perspectives on contested issues and distinguish clearly between fact, analysis, and opinion.
Editorial decisions are made solely by our newsroom. Donors, advertisers, and funders have zero influence over coverage decisions. Staff must disclose potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from relevant assignments. Our funding sources are publicly disclosed.
We weigh the public interest value of information against potential harm to individuals. We take special care with coverage of minors, crime victims, survivors of trauma, and vulnerable populations. We follow trauma-informed reporting practices and consult mental health professionals when appropriate.
We actively seek sources from communities most affected by the issues we cover. We are aware of the historical underrepresentation of marginalized voices in journalism and work to correct it in our sourcing, framing, and staffing. We do not treat powerful institutions as the default authoritative voice.
We explain our methodology to readers. We link to primary source documents whenever possible. We disclose when information was obtained under embargo, through anonymous sources, via FOIA request, or through legal process. We publish our funding sources and donor list annually.
We pursue stories because they serve the public interest — not because they generate traffic, please donors, or advance a political agenda. Every investigation we undertake must answer the question: does the public have a right and a need to know this?
The seriousness of our allegations must be matched by the strength of our evidence. We do not publish serious allegations on thin evidence. The more damaging the claim, the higher the evidentiary bar. We err on the side of caution — and say so when we do.
Original investigations at NonProfit Media follow a rigorous ten-step process from story selection through post-publication follow-through. No investigation is published until every step has been completed and documented.
Every investigation begins with a formal pitch reviewed by the editorial team. We ask: Is there a genuine public interest? Is the story actionable — can it lead to accountability, policy change, or public awareness that matters? Do we have a realistic path to the evidence? Stories that fail this test are not pursued.
We file Freedom of Information Act requests at the federal, state, and local level as a primary investigative tool. We maintain a public FOIA log. When agencies delay or deny requests, we appeal and, where warranted, litigate. We share obtained records with other newsrooms when doing so serves the public interest.
We cultivate sources over time, not just for individual stories. Whistleblowers and confidential sources are protected with the full force of our legal and technical resources — including encrypted communications, secure drop systems, and legal representation when sources face retaliation. We never burn a source.
Where investigations involve large datasets, financial records, or document troves, we apply rigorous data journalism methodology: cleaning, verification, cross-referencing, and statistical analysis. We consult independent experts to verify our analytical conclusions before publication.
Every factual claim is traced to its primary source — the original document, dataset, court record, or direct statement. Secondary sources (other news articles) are used only as leads, never as verification. We obtain and review original documents wherever possible.
Claims are corroborated by at least one additional independent source. For serious allegations — criminal conduct, professional misconduct, significant financial wrongdoing — we require three or more independent sources. Anonymous sources must be corroborated by documentary evidence.
Individuals and organizations subject to critical coverage are contacted with specific, detailed questions and given a reasonable deadline to respond. Their responses — including "no comment" — are included in the published piece. We do not accept last-minute responses designed to delay publication without good cause.
Investigations involving serious allegations of criminal conduct, defamation risk, national security implications, or significant legal exposure are reviewed by our legal counsel before publication. Legal review does not override editorial judgment — it informs it.
All investigations are reviewed by a senior editor before publication. Investigations involving serious allegations undergo a second review by the Editor-in-Chief. No journalist approves their own work. The editor's role is to challenge assumptions, identify gaps, and ensure the evidence supports every claim.
We track the impact of our investigations after publication — policy changes, legal actions, corporate responses, and official accountability. We follow up on investigations when significant new developments occur. We do not consider a story finished when it is published.
The quality of our journalism depends on the quality of our sources. We apply different standards to different types of sources — and we are transparent with readers about which types of sources we are relying on.
Preferred for all factual claims. Named sources are held to the highest standard of accountability. We push back on requests for anonymity and grant it only when genuinely warranted.
Used only when the source has direct, firsthand knowledge; cannot be named without credible risk of retaliation, legal jeopardy, or physical harm; and the information cannot be obtained any other way. The reason for anonymity is disclosed to readers. Anonymous sources are corroborated by documentary evidence wherever possible.
Original documents, datasets, and records are preferred over source testimony. We link to primary documents whenever legally and practically possible. We do not rely on documents we cannot authenticate.
Court filings, government reports, regulatory actions, and other official records are treated as authoritative but not infallible — we verify their accuracy, completeness, and context. Official records can be wrong, incomplete, or deliberately misleading.
Experts are identified by their relevant credentials and institutional affiliations. We disclose any funding relationships between experts and parties with interests in the story. We seek experts who disagree with our preliminary findings, not just those who confirm them.
AI tools may be used to assist in research, document review, and pattern identification. All AI-generated leads and claims are independently verified by journalists using primary sources before publication. AI output is never treated as authoritative.
Editorial independence requires that our journalists have no financial, personal, or political interests that could compromise — or appear to compromise — their reporting. These rules apply to all editorial staff, freelancers, and board members.
We make mistakes. When we do, we correct them promptly, transparently, and without minimizing what went wrong. Our corrections policy is designed to maintain reader trust — not to protect our reputation.
When we make a factual error, we correct it as quickly as possible — typically within hours of identification. We do not wait for the news cycle to pass. Corrections are published at the top of the affected article, not buried at the bottom.
Corrections clearly state what was wrong, what the correct information is, and when the correction was made. We do not use vague language like "this article has been updated." We say what was wrong and why.
When an investigation is found to be fundamentally flawed — not merely containing a correctable error — we retract it in full. Retractions are published as standalone articles, not just appended to the original. We explain what went wrong in our process.
We maintain a public corrections archive. We do not delete corrections after a period of time. The record of our errors is permanent and searchable. We believe accountability requires that our mistakes remain visible.
To report a factual error or request a correction: Submit a Correction →
Whistleblowers and confidential sources are the lifeblood of investigative journalism. We take our obligation to protect them with absolute seriousness. The following commitments are not aspirational — they are operational policies enforced across the organization.
We operate a SecureDrop instance for anonymous tip submission. We accept encrypted communications via Signal. We never ask sources to communicate through channels that could expose their identity.
We retain legal counsel to advise and, where appropriate, represent sources who face retaliation for providing information to us. We will fight subpoenas seeking to identify confidential sources to the fullest extent permitted by law.
Knowledge of source identities is limited to the minimum number of staff necessary. Source identities are not stored in systems accessible to the full organization. We take operational security seriously.
We have never revealed a confidential source without their explicit consent. We will not do so under any circumstances, including legal pressure, government demands, or threats to the organization. This is an absolute commitment.
If you have information about wrongdoing and want to share it securely, use our encrypted tip submission system. You do not need to identify yourself.
Submit a Secure Tip →In addition to original investigations, NonProfit Media curates and contextualizes critical reporting from trusted partner newsrooms. Curated content is held to the same accuracy and attribution standards as our original work. We apply the following additional criteria:
We only curate from organizations with established editorial standards, demonstrated track records of accuracy, transparent correction policies, and editorial independence from the subjects they cover.
All curated content is clearly attributed to the original publisher and authors. We link directly to the original investigation. We do not present curated reporting as our own original work.
Our editorial additions — summaries, analysis, and context — are clearly distinguished from the original reporting. Readers can always tell what is ours and what is theirs.
We note when curated investigations are historical and provide updates when significant new developments have occurred. We do not present outdated reporting as current without disclosure.
We do not alter the meaning, findings, or conclusions of original investigations. Our summaries accurately represent the original reporting — including its limitations and caveats.
When an original publisher issues a correction to an investigation we have curated, we update our coverage to reflect the correction promptly and transparently.
NonProfit Media uses AI tools to assist journalists in research, document review, and analysis. All AI-assisted content is subject to rigorous human oversight and verification. AI is a tool — not a journalist, not a source, and not an authority.
All AI-assisted content undergoes human editorial review and fact-checking. AI tools assist journalists — they never replace human judgment, verification, or accountability. A journalist's byline means a human being is responsible for the content.
When AI tools are used to draft, analyze, translate, or generate content, we disclose this to readers. AI-generated quotes, images, or synthetic media are clearly labeled. We do not use AI to fabricate quotes, sources, or events.
All AI-generated factual claims are independently verified by journalists using primary sources. AI output is treated as a draft requiring human verification — not as authoritative information. AI hallucinations are a known risk; we treat them accordingly.
When AI tools are used to analyze large datasets or identify patterns, we document the methodology, validate the outputs against known data, and have the analysis independently reviewed before drawing conclusions for publication.
Contact our Standards Editor with questions about our editorial practices, to report a potential error, or to challenge a factual claim in any of our investigations.