CODE OF ETHICS
What we hold ourselves to, stated plainly, so readers can hold us to it.
A code of ethics published on a website is easy to write and easy to ignore. We have written this one with the understanding that you will read it critically, and that you should.
We report what we can verify.
Every factual claim in our journalism is sourced. We name our sources when we can. When we protect a source's identity, we say so and explain why. We do not quote anonymous sources to allow people to attack others without accountability, and we do not use unnamed sources to dress speculation as reporting.
We publish when we are confident something is accurate. Being second with a verified story is better than being first with a wrong one.
We separate what we know from what we think.
Our news reporting tells you what happened. Our analysis tells you what we think it means. Our opinion pieces tell you what a writer argues, and we publish the opposing view alongside. If you are reading something that expresses a point of view, it will be labelled as such.
We are independent.
The Global Voice takes no government funding. We carry no advertising that gives any brand editorial influence over what we publish. No investor holds a stake in this publication with strings attached.
We have an editorial perspective: we believe India's voice in global affairs has been underrepresented and we are here to correct that. That is a position, not a bias we conceal. We name it so you can account for it.
We correct our mistakes.
When we get something wrong, we fix it visibly. Corrections appear on the original article with a note at the top explaining what changed and why. We do not delete articles quietly or edit published work without acknowledgement.
To report an error: corrections@theglobalvoice.com
We will not, regardless of circumstance:
Publish fabricated material. Suppress a story because it embarrasses a source we rely on. Run a story because it embarrasses a political actor we disagree with, if the story does not hold up. Name private individuals in ways that put them at risk without a clear public interest justification.