Editorial Standards & Ethics
What these standards are for
This page describes how WEBWIZARD 360 decides what to publish and how to publish it. It is not marketing. It is the set of rules the newsroom actually works to, written down so that you can hold us to them and so that everyone here answers to the same standard. When we fall short of what follows, that is a failure to be fixed, not a rule to be quietly dropped.
Our job is to give a general reader an accurate, fair and useful account of the world across business, the economy, entertainment, health, politics, science, sports and beyond. Getting that right depends less on any single clever decision than on a set of ordinary disciplines applied every day.
Accuracy comes first
Accuracy outranks speed, exclusivity and traffic. We would rather be right and second than first and wrong. Before we publish a factual claim that matters, we trace it to something we can point at: an official document, a set of results, a named statement, a recording, a dataset. Where a claim cannot be stood up, we either hold it or we state plainly how uncertain it is, rather than dressing a rumour in the grammar of a fact.
We do not publish a claim simply because someone else did. Inheriting a mistake from another outlet is still making the mistake. When we cannot yet confirm something on a fast-moving story, we say what is confirmed, what is reported but unconfirmed, and what is still unknown, and we update as the picture firms up. How individual claims are checked is described in our fact-checking policy.
Sourcing, and being straight about it
We prefer named, on-the-record sources and primary documents, and we show our sourcing so you can check it. We link to the filing, the release, the study or the transcript wherever we can. When we rely on an anonymous source, it is because the information is important and the person has a genuine reason to fear consequences, not because anonymity is convenient. Anonymous claims are corroborated where possible and never used to launder a cheap attack.
We describe sources as precisely as protecting them allows, so that you can weigh their vantage point and any interest they might have. We do not invent quotes, composite characters or scenes. We do not pass off a press release as reporting. When material comes from a wire service or a syndication partner, it is what it is, and we do not dress it up as our own original work.
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 we publish and we give them a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Their response, or their refusal to give one, goes in the story. We do not ambush a subject with a deadline so tight it is a refusal by design.
Fairness also means representing views accurately, including views we or our readers dislike, and not building a straw version of an argument just to knock it down. It does not mean false balance. Giving equal weight to a well-evidenced position and a fringe claim, as though the evidence were even, misleads readers in the name of even-handedness, and we do not do it.
Keeping news and opinion apart
News reporting and opinion are different products and we keep them visibly separate. A news story tells you what happened and attributes every judgement in it to a source. Opinion, analysis and commentary carry the writer’s own reasoning and conclusions, and they are labelled so you are never in doubt about which one you are reading.
Analysis, which sits between the two, explains what the news means and why it matters, but it still rests on reported facts and it still shows its working. Whatever the form, the underlying facts have to be true. You are entitled to your own opinion on our pages, and so are our writers, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.
Independence and conflicts of interest
Our journalism is not for sale and it is not for trade. Advertisers, commercial partners and the subjects of our stories get no say over what we publish or how, a separation described in full on our ownership and funding page. When a company that advertises with us becomes the subject of coverage, the story runs and the relationship is disclosed.
People here do not report on matters in which they have a personal or financial stake. Where a conflict exists, it is declared and the story is reassigned, and the handover is recorded rather than agreed quietly. We pay our own way on the stories we cover. Gifts, hospitality and sponsored trips that could compromise our independence are declined, and where any arrangement is accepted on defensible terms, the reader is told.
Harm, dignity and public interest
Publishing has consequences, and we weigh them. We take particular care with private grief, with children, with victims of crime and with people who did not choose to be in the public eye. We do not identify people where identification would put them at risk without a public interest strong enough to justify it, and we think hard about graphic images and gratuitous detail. Naming the powerful who are accountable is not the same as exposing the vulnerable who are not.
We correct our mistakes openly under our corrections policy, and we treat feedback and complaints from readers as part of the work rather than an interruption to it. If you think we have breached a standard on this page, tell us at support@webwizard360.com, and if you are right we will say so and put it right.
Last updated: August 2026
