Editorial Standards & Ethics
Why this page exists
Anyone can publish a headline now. What separates journalism from the rest is a set of rules the publisher holds to even when breaking them would be easier or more profitable. This page is our set. It is not decoration, it is the standard our editors are held to internally, and it is the standard you are entitled to hold us to from outside.
CREATE MORE FLOW covers business, economy, entertainment, health, politics, science, sports, technology, and world affairs. The subjects are broad, the principles are constant. Get it right, be fair, show your work, and be honest about what you do not know.
Accuracy comes first
Accuracy beats speed here, every time the two are in tension. We would rather be a few minutes behind with something we can stand behind than first with something we will be correcting by lunchtime. Before we publish a factual claim of any weight, we ask where it comes from, how the source would know, and whether we can point a reader to the underlying evidence.
We start from primary sources: the filing, the ruling, the official figure, the transcript, the study itself rather than a summary of it. Where we rely on another outlet’s original reporting, we credit it and link to it, and we do not launder someone else’s scoop into our own. When we cannot confirm something, we either hold it or we say clearly that it is unconfirmed and who is claiming it.
Sourcing, and the use of anonymity
Named sources are the default, because a reader can weigh a claim better when they know who is making it. Named, on the record, and specific about how they know is the gold standard, and we push for it.
Anonymity is granted, not given away. We use it when the information is genuinely in the public interest and the source would face a real risk, such as to their job or safety, by being named. When we grant it, we still know who the source is, we tell the reader why the person is anonymous and what their vantage point is, and we try to corroborate what they tell us rather than run a single unverifiable claim. We protect confidential sources absolutely, and we do not identify them to anyone, advertisers and lawyers included.
Fairness and the right of reply
When our reporting makes a serious allegation about a person or an organisation, we put it to them before publication and give them a fair and genuine chance to respond, and we carry their response properly rather than in a dismissive last line. If they decline or do not reply in time, we say so. Fairness does not mean false balance: we do not manufacture a fifty fifty argument where the evidence is lopsided, and reporting that a claim is false is not bias.
We treat people in the news as people. We take particular care with the vulnerable, with victims of crime, with the grieving, and with children, and we weigh the public interest against the harm that naming or picturing someone can do. Privacy is not erased by being newsworthy, and we intrude only where the public interest genuinely justifies it.
Keeping news and opinion apart
A reader should never have to guess whether they are being told what happened or what we think about it. News reporting aims to be straight: what is known, from whom, and what remains uncertain. Opinion, analysis, and comment are labelled as such and kept visually and structurally separate from reporting.
Analysis is allowed to draw conclusions from evidence, but it still has to respect the facts, and it is not a licence to smuggle a preference past the reader as though it were a finding. Where we express a view, we own it as a view.
Independence and conflicts of interest
Our journalism is not for sale and is not steered by advertisers, sponsors, or any outside interest. No advertiser sees a story before it publishes, and none can soften or kill one, a rule described in full on our advertise page and our ownership and funding page. When we cover a company that advertises with us, the story reports it as it would any other.
People here declare interests that could look like a conflict, financial, personal, or political, and step away from stories where their involvement would be reasonably questioned. We do not accept payment, gifts, trips, or favours that could buy coverage. Where something of value is genuinely unavoidable and relevant, we disclose it in the story.
Images, data, and generative tools
We do not stage, or manipulate photographs in ways that mislead, beyond ordinary cropping and colour correction. Where an image is an illustration, a reconstruction, or a file picture, it is labelled. Data and charts are built to inform rather than to flatter a narrative, and we describe the source and the caveats. Any use of automated or generative tools in our workflow is subject to human editorial judgement and verification: a tool can help gather or draft, it does not get to publish, and it does not relieve an editor of responsibility for a single word that goes out.
Accountability
Standards mean nothing without a way to enforce them. When we fall short, we correct openly through our corrections policy, and how we test claims before publication is set out in our fact-checking policy. If you believe we have breached the standards on this page, tell us: write to support@createmoreflow.com with a link and the specifics, and it will be read by an editor. We would rather hear a hard complaint and act on it than protect a mistake.
Last updated: August 2026
