In order to maintain a high quality experience for our readers, NewsNow operates a strict set of Editorial Standards, Code of Conduct and Issue Resolution Procedures for publishers.
Editorial Standards
Background
The credibility and quality of NewsNow as a news outlet is dependent on that of the websites it links to.
Our readers expect the inclusion of publications on NewsNow that have an established reputation for quality and/or breaking exclusive news stories through regular access to primary sources.
We also carry some that do not have that same established reputation or regular access to primary sources, but for all our publications the quality and credibility of their articles must be demonstrable to our readers, if they are to warrant inclusion on the site.
For more information on how we select authors or publishers for inclusion, see our Open Content Policy.
1. Write original and substantial articles
Articles must be original and not consist of text substantially copied, rehashed, plagiarised, adapted, aggregated, or syndicated from other publications. [Read more]
Content that is suitable includes exclusive news, current news reworked with added value, round-ups of multiple publications with added value, comment, opinion pieces, columns, feature articles, analytical articles, investigative pieces, interviews and reviews. From sports sites, we also welcome match previews, match reports and player ratings.
Articles should be written in clear English and free from spelling, grammar or punctuation errors. They need to be accurate with all facts checked.
Text articles must contain at least 150 words of original editorial. Non-textual articles (where the main content is video, audio or images) must contain at least 75 words of original text. Quotes copied from other publications/social media are not counted.
2. Substantiate claims, and use credible sources
Claims (including rumours) must be substantiated. Where claims are substantiated with reference to a source, the source must be credible (and attributed — see below). [Read more]
(For the avoidance of doubt, an assertion is not a claim if it is common knowledge. To be considered common knowledge, a piece of information must have been previously verified by numerous credible sources and be widely known within the relevant community.)
Publishers need to show that they carefully assess the credibility of sources, even where they are considered authoritative. A source that is generally credible may not be so in reference to the topic the article is about. We view the credibility of sources as situational and highly dependent on context.
We look for evidence that particular care is taken when considering the credibility of anonymous sources. If there exists reason to doubt a claim or the authenticity of a quote, then it should not be reported as fact.
Special care should be taken when presenting claims or quotes attributed to official or high-profile sources. Any assertions from an official or high-profile source should be verified by an independent source and full context should be given about the status, incentives and potential conflicts of interest of the source.
Publications should not repeat assertions or quotes that are unverified, unverifiable (in principle or in practice), ambiguous or speculative without making that status very clear to the reader.
The language used by a publication must make it clear what claims are being made. For example, words or phrases implying conclusiveness — such as ‘confirmed’, ‘done deal’, ‘agreed’ — should only be used if the information has been officially confirmed. In the context of football news, valuations such as footballer transfer fees should derive from a recently completed deal or else be attributed to an authoritative source within the article. Monetary amounts should be reported in the currency of the publication's origin. Use of cumulative amounts — such as ‘City eyeing three players worth a combined £100m’ — may only be used when there is a clear intention for all of the deals to be completed together.
3. Attribute claims and quotes
Attribution allows readers to verify the origin and legitimacy of the factual content of articles. Where claims are substantiated with reference to a source, the source must be clearly attributed. Quotes must always be clearly attributed to their sources. [Read more]
Providing sufficient attribution
Articles should be unambiguous about which quotes or claims are attributed to which sources. Generally speaking, attribution should be made clear within each separate block of information or quotes. Attributing a source only once at the beginning of an article will generally be insufficient.
Specific sources should always be attributed, which means that language such as "according to reports", “reports say”, "allegedly", "it is thought", “we understand” should be avoided.
Claims and quotes sourced from other publications
Articles must attribute any publication from which they source any claim or quote. When repeating a quote obtained from another publication, the name of the individual or organisation quoted should also be stated.
Claims and quotes sourced from official or high-profile sources
Any claim or quote originating from an official or high-profile source should be clearly attributed. It is not sufficient for publications to repeat claims made by official or high-profile sources at face value. The nature of the official source, its incentives and biases, should always be clearly stated along with a clear account of whether and how the claims or quotes have been independently verified.
Non-exclusive quotes or information
The origin of non-exclusive quotes or information, given to or observed by reporters from more than one publication, must be stated.
Where information is taken from a broadcast (or webcast) of an event, the broadcaster (or webcaster), programme and transmission time or date of first posting should be included.
Where reporters have transcribed or taken information from an individual in circumstances in which they were present, but not in a capacity allowing for dialogue with that person (e.g. at a public event), these details should be clearly provided.
Phrasing such as ‘told reporters’ should only be used where the publication’s own reporter was one of those present and was able in principle to enter into dialogue with the person quoted (e.g. when attending a press conference, or participating in a roundtable interview shared with other reporters).
Exclusive quotes or information
When reporting information obtained exclusively, we expect publishers to be transparent and specify how it was gathered (e.g., in response to email questions, via telephone, or through a face-to-face interview) alongside the name of their publication (e.g., “in an interview with The Daily News” or “answering questions posed by The Daily News by email”). This requirement applies whether or not the publication is able to disclose the source’s identity.
Online sources
In the case of sources that are publicly available online, articles must clearly link to them (with the exception of harmful sources, such as betting sites). Links should point to the exact page, whether in English or in another language, where the claim or quote can be seen (i.e. the original article). It is not sufficient to link to the source’s homepage. In the case of social media posts the original post should be linked.
Offline sources
Offline sources must be referenced with sufficient information to allow readers to verify the claim/quote.
4. Write relevant headlines
Articles must feature relevant headlines, which must be factually accurate and not be misleading or contain exaggeration, sensationalism or hyperbole. NewsNow readers must be given fair expectations of an article’s content when deciding which headlines to click on. [Read more]
Repeated publication of articles that fail to deliver what their headline suggests may be viewed as an attempt to manipulate our systems. This disappoints readers, damages NewsNow’s reputation and in the long run reduces traffic for everyone.
Examples of issues we commonly encounter include:
-
Misleading headlines
Headlines must accurately describe the nature of the articles that follow. Headlines are commonly rendered misleading by:
- The strategic inclusion of irrelevant keywords and/or omission of pertinent contextual information.
- Presentation of speculation as fact.
- Use of a question mark to present speculation as a potentially substantiated claim.
- Inadequate warning that the article is a joke or spoof, and not meant to be taken seriously.
- Misrepresentation of an original quote by paraphrasing, condensing, or omission of context.
- The representation of previously unquoted words in the form of a quote. Quotation marks (or inverted commas) should only be used around word(s) that were published in quotation marks (or inverted commas) in the source material.
-
Exaggerated and sensational language or typography
Exaggerated and sensational language — such as ‘shock’, ‘amazing’, ‘unbelievable’, ‘outrageous’ — used in headlines must be fully justified in the articles that follow. Phrases like ‘Exclusive:’, ‘Revealed:’, and ‘Breaking news:’ are acceptable only when a publication is genuinely breaking the news exclusively (i.e. before all other publications), as opposed to when repeating it. Exclamation marks and block capitals should not be used at any time.
-
Keyword stuffing
Keyword stuffing is the practice of deliberately incorporating words (or keywords) that are not of primary relevance to the story, in the headline in an attempt to influence which NewsNow topics the headline will appear in. Headlines should rarely require numerous keywords, such as football team or player names, nicknames or stadium names.
-
Non-textual article content
Where the principle content of the article is non-textual this should be made explicit by prefixing the headline with a tag such as: ‘Pictures:’, ‘Photos:’, ‘Gallery:’, ‘Slideshow:’, ‘Video:’, ‘Watch:’.
5. Provide ‘About us’ and ‘Contact us’ pages
All publication websites should contain: an ‘About Us’ page, to provide background to readers; and a ‘Contact’ page, to allow readers to provide feedback.
Code of Conduct
The following practices are considered grounds for immediate initiation of our Issues Resolution Procedures (detailed below):
- Attempting to manipulate which sections of NewsNow will carry links to particular articles, the ranking of articles within our Top Stories, or otherwise attempting to influence our systems.
- Causing any duplicate articles to be published on NewsNow (such as any article published under more than one URL or on a URL that has been changed). If an article needs to be republished with an updated headline, it should remain on the original URL unless the original has been deleted. Deletion of an article from a site or feed may not result in it automatically disappearing from NewsNow. Republishing that leads to duplication may be considered an attempt to manipulate our systems.
- Causing any off-topic articles to be published on NewsNow, including but not limited to competitions, offers or discounts, self-promotion or advertorial, or articles containing any editorial written purely for the purpose of providing paid links (such as to betting websites).
- Using sectarian or racist language or other hate speech; excessive or inappropriate profanity or insulting language or making defamatory claims. Content must abide by the laws of England and Wales, or any other relevant jurisdiction.
- Displaying an excessive amount of advertising, or advertising that is otherwise overly obtrusive, impinging on the reading of articles, or for a product or service unsuitable for NewsNow readers.
- Serving article pages that are excessively large in download size and/or are poorly optimised for either desktop or mobile devices.
- Any action or activity that in our sole judgement may affect the perceived quality or integrity of NewsNow’s services or that risks bringing NewsNow or its services into disrepute.
Issue Resolution Procedures
NewsNow aims to provide the highest possible quality of service, and to maintain an environment suitable for all. We therefore endeavour to investigate all serious issues or credible complaints that are brought to our attention, and to take appropriate action.
Where we have an immediate quality of service concern, we will normally remove one or more headlines, publication sections, or an entire publication, without notice and until the matter has been resolved.
For very serious breaches or for gross misconduct, we reserve the right to remove a publication permanently and without notice.
Where we identify other apparent breaches of our Editorial and User Experience Standards or Code of Conduct, we will normally request a written explanation from the publisher. Where a publisher cannot provide a satisfactory explanation, sanctions will be applied. Depending on the severity of the breach, or the persistence of breaches, sanctions may include: written warning, temporary suspension (for a period of between one week and several months depending on circumstances), reclassification (changing where a site’s headlines appear on NewsNow) and permanent removal.
NewsNow reserves the right to amend or improve its Editorial Standards, Code of Conduct and Issue Resolution Procedures at any time without notice.
[1]While we would like for all publications to aspire to the same high standards of journalism, due to limitations in internal resources and availability of news in certain topics, we can't afford to strictly enforce our standards everywhere. However, we aim to enforce them where publications appear prominently in NewsNow's most popular topics (and where we otherwise deem necessary).
