AUDITABLE MEMBER POLICIES

Version 1.0

March 31, 2023

The Association of Principled Press requires its members submit themselves to an audit against these policies for all media not labeled as Opinion or Advertisement (or the like).

Corrections 

Must make corrections to factual errors and publish them as prominently as the error itself.

Assertions of fact

Assertions of fact must be cited.

Euphemisms and Non-Substantive Labels

If euphemisms are published, they must be in quotes. 

Examples:

 – Proposed Legislation / government program names  are politically-created tools to engender support and therefore lack substance. Once passed, they ought to be either kept in quotes or noted as being ‘called’ or ‘named’ their given name.

– Legislative and policy goals cannot be used synonymously with policies. An example of this would be an “Affordable Housing” or a “Tough-on-Crime” Advocate. Neither euphemism serves the purpose of describing a policy, such as, potentially, supporting rigid criminal sentencing rules, or government subsidies for low-income rental housing.

– Terms that contradict the common meanings of words like “Settled science.” Science is a method of discovery; thus ‘settled science’ lacks substance without quotes.

 – Non-substantive labels of a person must not be used unless self-described, which should be noted.  In a journalist’s summary description of a person or group, we describe what the person actually does, not what others say they are. 

Examples of Non-Substantive Labels 

• “Liberal” or “conservative” | OK:  membership in a political party.
• “Pro abortion” or “pro-life”  | OK: supports (or opposes) legislation expanding access to a woman’s ability to have an abortion.
• “Woke” / “Extremist”  
• Labels describing a “-phobia” absent a public disclosure of a medical condition or a self-description of a fear lack factual substance.

Creating Motives

Journalists cannot report with credibility motives of those absent admission or finding by an authoritative (and cited) source. Our culture has allowed knowing someone else’s heart to creep its way into the media to our detriment. The most prominent example is  “hate speech.” Absent an admission of hatred or a  finding of “hate speech” by a court as it relates to an enacted law disallowing “hate speech,” a term expressing motivation for an action cannot be used.  Primarily, journalists don’t know who hates whom to know if hate motivates certain speech. We report on the speech. Likewise, journalists do not know if people who accept government benefits, use tax loopholes and the like are opportunistic, cheats, lazy or what have you. We report on the actions, not the heart of the actor, which we do not know.

Appeals to authority

A journalist reports what was said and by whom, and their credentials. A journalist doesn’t assert that something is actually true or false because it was said by an authority.

Name-calling 

Journalists aren’t obligated to report ad hominem attacks and name calling, When ad hominem attacks and name calling are reported, they may only be done so in the context of the attacker/name-caller’s willful avoidance of substance.

Responses to substantive criticism 

When a journalist reports the substantive criticism of a person or group, as a matter of honor and integrity, they must also report the substantive response to that criticism, in the same or similar format/prominence.

Publishing False Information

It has to be said in 2023– a journalist who lies isn’t one. Journalists must only publish facts they can independently verify as true. If a source lies, that source must be identified.