Reporting methods
We seek primary records, contemporaneous accounts, and direct knowledge. We distinguish verified fact from allegation, institutional finding, disputed fact, and our own reporting conclusion. Anonymous sourcing requires a clear reason, direct knowledge, and corroboration appropriate to the claim.
Right of response
People and institutions facing material criticism receive the substance of the claims and a meaningful opportunity to respond before publication whenever practicable. Responses are represented fairly and attributed clearly; their inclusion does not mean we accept them as fact. Retrospective articles based entirely on published court, regulatory and legislative records may be published without a new request for comment, and say so.
Corrections and updates
We correct material errors promptly and explain the change. Updates that add substantive reporting are dated and preserved in an article history. We do not silently revise a conclusion or remove relevant context merely because it is disputed.
Conflicts and disclosures
Reporters and editors disclose financial, familial, political, or personal interests that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their work. A material conflict may require reassignment, recusal, or a public note.