Transparency

Editorial Handbook

This document describes how we work. It covers what we publish, how we verify it, how we correct it when wrong, and what we expect from contributors. We publish it publicly because accountability to readers is not an aspiration — it is an obligation.

Last updated: March 2026. Questions or concerns: hello@thefreethinkingtimes.com

Mission and scope

The Freethinking Times is an independent publication committed to journalism that follows evidence, names causes, and holds power accountable. We cover news, analysis, history, science, culture, and opinion across a broad range of subjects, unified by a common epistemological standard: claims require evidence, conclusions require argument, and conclusions that are inconvenient to reach must be reached anyway.

We do not have a partisan alignment. We do have commitments — to accuracy, to transparency, to the proposition that some things are more true than others, and that saying so plainly is a service to readers, not an imposition on them.

We are not "both sides" journalists. We are not "view from nowhere" journalists. Where evidence is strong, we say so. Where authority is compromised, we say so. Where uncertainty is real, we describe the actual state of uncertainty — not manufacture false balance to appear neutral.

Accuracy and verification

Every factual claim in our reporting must be verifiable before publication. The standard for verification depends on the nature of the claim:

  • Documented facts (statistics, dates, quotes, legal findings) require a primary source: the original document, official record, or verified transcript. Secondary source alone is not sufficient.
  • Witness accounts require at minimum two independent sources unless a single witness is uniquely positioned and the account is corroborated by documentary evidence.
  • Expert claims require that the expert's relevant credentials and any potential conflicts of interest be disclosed in or alongside the piece.
  • Anonymous sources are used only when the information is material and cannot be obtained on the record. When used, the reason for anonymity is disclosed to the reader.

Analysis and opinion pieces may draw inferences from documented evidence. Those inferences must be clearly marked as interpretation, not established fact. The underlying evidence must be citeable.

Sourcing standards

We prefer primary sources to secondary sources, and name sources wherever possible. When a source requests anonymity, we evaluate the request against the following criteria:

  • Is the information material to the public interest?
  • Is there a credible risk of harm to the source if identified?
  • Can the information be obtained on the record by other means?
  • Is the source in a position to have direct knowledge of what they are describing?

We do not grant anonymity to sources making accusations against named individuals without giving those individuals a reasonable opportunity to respond. We do not use anonymous sourcing to publish speculation or to allow sources to make claims they would not make on the record.

When we cite think tanks, advocacy organizations, or research produced by parties with financial interests in the subject matter, we disclose those interests in the piece.

Artificial intelligence

AI tools are not used to generate reported content, quotes, or factual claims. We may use AI tools to assist with research workflows (summarizing long documents, identifying patterns in datasets) where the underlying documents are primary sources verified by a human editor. Any such use is disclosed in the piece.

Editorial independence

The Freethinking Times has no corporate parent and accepts no advertising. We are funded by reader support. No funder, reader, or third party has any influence over our editorial decisions, including story selection, framing, or conclusions.

We do not publish sponsored content. We do not accept advertorials. We do not accept review copies in exchange for coverage, and we do not allow press release language to appear in our pages without editorial rewriting and independent verification.

Decisions about what to cover and how to frame coverage are made solely by our editorial staff. Disagreements about editorial direction are resolved internally. Readers who disagree with a specific editorial judgment are welcome to contact us, and we will consider their arguments — but decisions remain with the editors.

Corrections policy

We correct errors as soon as they are identified, regardless of how much time has passed. Corrections are:

  • Disclosed in the article — corrections appear in a labeled section at the bottom of the article that first contained the error, noting the date of correction and describing what was changed.
  • Logged publicly — all corrections are aggregated at /corrections/, accessible to anyone.
  • Not hidden — we do not silently edit articles to correct factual errors. All substantive changes are documented.

Minor copyediting (spelling, punctuation, formatting) that does not affect meaning may be made without a correction notice. Factual corrections, changes to names or characterizations, added context that materially changes the meaning of a piece — all of these require a correction notice.

Suggesting a correction

Readers may suggest corrections using the "Suggest a correction" link at the bottom of every article. This opens a pre-addressed email to our corrections desk. We review all suggestions and respond to those that raise substantive concerns.

We do not correct matters of opinion or interpretation. If you disagree with our analysis or conclusions, the appropriate venue is the letters section, not the corrections log.

Tone and voice

We write in plain English. We avoid jargon, bureaucratic language, and euphemism. We call things by their names. When something is wrong, we say it is wrong. When someone has done something harmful, we name the harm.

We are direct without being contemptuous. We argue positions without attacking the people who hold opposing views as people. We distinguish between criticizing an institution's actions and impugning individual character.

We do not perform anger or indignation for rhetorical effect. We do not treat readers as a constituency to be rallied rather than a public to be informed. When we are confident about something, we say so. When we are uncertain, we describe the actual state of the uncertainty.

We do not use hedge words to make conclusions that we have reached sound more tentative than they are, as a way of avoiding responsibility for having reached them. This is a form of dishonesty, and we do not practice it.

Contributor expectations

We accept submissions from contributors who are not on staff. All contributor submissions are subject to the same editorial standards as staff work. Submission does not guarantee publication, and we do not publish work that does not meet our standards.

Contributors must:

  • Disclose any financial, professional, or personal interests that might be relevant to their subject matter
  • Identify all sources, on and off the record, to our editors (sources remain confidential from publication; they are not confidential from editors)
  • Not have submitted the same piece simultaneously to other publications
  • Be willing to work with our editors on revisions before publication
  • Notify us if they become aware of a factual error in a piece after publication

We pay contributors. We do not publish on a "for exposure" basis. Payment terms are discussed prior to assigning a piece.

Details of our submission process are at /submit/.

Conflicts of interest

Editors and staff reporters may not have undisclosed financial interests in subjects they cover. This includes equity holdings, consulting relationships, speaking engagements, or any other arrangement that might create an incentive to favor or disfavor coverage of a particular organization or individual.

Staff who are offered gifts, travel, or other consideration from organizations they cover must decline or disclose to the editor-in-chief. This applies to invitations to private events, review products, and access arrangements.

When a personal relationship (family, close friendship, or professional partnership) between a staff member and a subject of coverage creates a potential conflict, that staff member recuses from coverage of that subject and the recusal is noted in any relevant piece.

Contact and complaints

Editorial questions, correction suggestions, complaints about coverage, and requests for clarification should be directed to hello@thefreethinkingtimes.com.

We acknowledge receipt of substantive complaints within five business days and aim to respond fully within ten. Where a complaint leads to a correction, we notify the person who raised it.

If you believe our editorial standards have been violated in a serious way that we have not adequately addressed after contact, we recommend the following external resources: