Every publication that covers the intersection of technology and journalism carries a particular responsibility: the very tools and pressures we write about, from AI-generated content to synthetic media, are the same ones reshaping what readers can trust. At Editors Weblog, we take that responsibility seriously, and we think it is worth being explicit about how we work.

What We Are, and What We Are Not

Editors Weblog is an analysis publication, part of the World Editors Forum. Our output is editorial analysis: we interpret, contextualise, and explain developments in journalism and media technology. We are not a wire service, and we do not conduct original scientific research, run product benchmarks, or carry out proprietary testing. Our authority rests on careful reading of others' work, accurate attribution, and clear-eyed editorial judgement. Readers should understand that distinction from the outset.

Source Standards

Every specific claim in our articles must trace back to a real, named, verifiable source. That means:

  • Statistics and study findings are attributed to the organisation or publication that produced them, named explicitly in the text or the Sources section at the foot of each article.
  • Quotations are drawn only from published materials, public statements, or on-record interviews. We do not paraphrase a source and present it as a direct quote, and we do not attribute remarks to individuals who did not make them.
  • Regulatory and policy claims reference the actual instrument: a named regulation, a published policy document, or an official announcement with a traceable origin.
  • When we are not confident a detail is accurate, we either broaden the claim to a general observation or omit it entirely. Precision we cannot verify does not appear in our copy.

How AI Fits Into Our Workflow

Because we cover AI's impact on newsrooms, our own use of AI tools is a legitimate question for readers to raise. We use AI-assisted drafting as a starting point in some workflows, but every article is reviewed and edited by a human editor before publication. That editor is responsible for the accuracy of every factual claim, the appropriateness of every source cited, and the integrity of the final text. AI output is treated as a draft, not as a source of fact. Any claim introduced at the drafting stage is checked against named, external sources before it is allowed to stand.

This matters especially given the topics we cover. As we have noted in our analysis of synthetic media and its implications for newsrooms, the credibility gap created by AI-generated content is a structural problem for journalism. We have no interest in contributing to it.

Corrections Policy

We correct errors. When a factual mistake is identified after publication, we update the article, note the correction at the foot of the piece, and, where the error is significant, add an editorial note at the top. We do not delete corrections or quietly rewrite text without acknowledgement. If you believe something we have published is inaccurate, the right course is to contact our editorial team directly with the specific claim you dispute and the source that contradicts it.

Coverage Scope and Editorial Independence

Our coverage concentrates on journalism practice, media technology, and the evolving standards around content authenticity. Much of our recent analysis has focused on provenance infrastructure: how the industry is building technical and editorial systems to establish trust in digital content. Our complete guide to C2PA and content provenance is one example of how we approach a complex technical standard, explaining it clearly without overstating what it can or cannot do.

We track implementation through resources such as our C2PA adoption tracker, and we situate current developments in their historical context, as in our history of content authentication. Where we distinguish between competing approaches, as in our analysis of content credentials versus watermarking, we aim to represent each approach accurately before offering editorial perspective.

We are editorially independent. We do not accept payment for coverage, and no advertiser or partner relationship determines what we write or how we characterise a technology, company, or policy.

What We Expect From Our Writers

Contributors to Editors Weblog are expected to follow the same standards that apply to the editorial team:

  • Do not invent, extrapolate, or round up statistics. If the number is not in the source, it does not go in the article.
  • Do not fabricate or composite quotations.
  • Do not present AI-generated assertions as verified facts without independent confirmation from a named source.
  • Disclose any potential conflict of interest to the editors before an article is commissioned.

These are not aspirational standards. They are the conditions under which work is published here.

A Note on Uncertainty

Covering emerging technology means writing about things that are genuinely unsettled. Standards evolve, adoption curves are unpredictable, and what a tool can do today may change significantly in six months. We try to be honest about that uncertainty rather than projecting false confidence. When evidence is mixed or incomplete, we say so. Analysis that acknowledges the limits of current knowledge is more useful to our readers than false certainty presented with editorial authority.

Trust in journalism is not declared. It is demonstrated, repeatedly, through consistent practice. This page is our attempt to make that practice visible.

Sources

  • World Editors Forum, Editors Weblog editorial charter and about page
  • C2PA (Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity), published specification and documentation