...
Our aim is to provide a fast-moving and up-to-date news and information platform for citizen journalists to share their high-quality video content with the world.
Our journalistic breadth will be wide-ranging. We intend to hold a mirror to the world, reporting on every aspect of life on planet earthEarth. We will showcase heart-warming stories of ordinary citizens, plus stories of triumph over adversity; we will celebrate the diversity of culture and bring innovation and scientific discovery to our viewers. Equally, we will expose wrongdoing, hold the powerful to account, and report accurately on unfolding events around the world.
...
We prohibit the use of defamatory and libelous content. We do not permit any harmful, offensive, or obscene content. We do not tolerate racism or hate speech, neither nor do we allow extremely violent or graphic content, or content that includes threats of violence or incitement to commit acts of violence towards any group or individual. Any such submitted content will be removed and the user banned for life.
...
| Note |
|---|
These Editorial Standards apply to all published content and to all users submitting content, regardless of wherever in the world the content is created. The guidelines represent the gold standard for everyone making and submitting content. They are intended to help anyone producing content to deal with difficult editorial issues. These Standards are This is a journalism centric resource that is complementary to, and does not replace, our Community Standards. All content must be in compliance with both standards. |
...
All contributors must ensure the accuracy of their content. This means double-checking facts and not relying on a single source to verify a story. Rumor and hearsay are not facts. We only report what we can best determine is the truth. Anything less could be extremely damaging to innocent individuals we malign. It will also erode audience trust and may have dire legal implications.
Ideally, we will witness the material we report ourselves and not rely on second-hand information.
If a contributor to Unpress is offered video or any other material to stand up a story, we must be able to verify its accuracy and attribute the source. If we cannot verify it’s its accuracy, then the source must be attributed and we must state that we have not been able to verify accuracy.
Ordinarily, contributors should avoid anonymous sources, especially if their stories are not easily verified. However, if we do decide to grant anonymity to a source, be aware that this is a serious undertaking, and every effort must be made to protect their identity. We must also ensure the audience understands the reason for the anonymity and given just enough information to establish the credibility of the source, without revealing their identity. Information on sources should be populated in the Sources and Citations area of your story.
Any attempt to knowingly pass off false information as fact will result in the content being removed and an immediate ban on the contributor.
...
To ensure the audience continues to trust the accuracy and fairness of our content, our reporting must be impartial. That means , contributors must not express or reveal their personal views in any way on any of the News stories we they publish.
We do not have a view or an opinion on our News stories. Let the facts speak for themselves.
...
Impartiality is not the same as balance. In normal reporting we would expect both sides of a story to be represented, or a ‘right of reply’ to be given. However, if a story is incontrovertibly true, then balance is not necessarily required. For example, the mounting scientific proof that the planet is warming and that the incidence of unnatural events such as extreme heat and devastating floods is growing exponentially , tells us that climate change is real. As such, a story about climate change does not technically require being balanced with an opposing view.
We handle conspiracy theories with care. Conspiracy theories by their nature, lack evidential proof, nor do we accept any medical or scientific theories or conspiracies that do not have a foundation in scientific fact. You can report on them, but you must do so in a way that does not subscribe to, endorse, support, promote, or advocate for them.
Impartiality does not mean a contributor must adopt a submissive tone when interviewing a subject. Indeed, tough questions and holding the powerful to account is expected of all journalists. In such circumstances, the journalist is there on behalf of the audience and must ask the necessary and appropriate questions.
...
As stated in the introduction above, we do not permit harmful, offensive, or obscene content. We do not tolerate racism or hate speech of any kind, neither nor do we allow extremely violent content, or content that includes threats of violence or incitement to commit acts of violence towards any group or individual.
Having said that, we recognize that the publication of ‘challenging’ content, which passes the public interest test and has editorial purpose, and which seeks only to prompt legitimate and fair public debate, is permissible. Our moderators will determine whether the content meets this narrow interpretation; the public interest bar will be set extremely high.
Our content must not compromise the vulnerability of any person, especially that of a child or minor.
...
This does not mean that faith groups can’t be challenged, especially when there is a clear public interest case for doing so. However, mocking religion or a person’s spiritual beliefs for its own sake , is not permitted1. This is particularly relevant when depicting or talking about religious imagery and ritual. For example, many Muslims regard any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as highly offensive.
...
Fairness relates directly to all our actions as a citizen journalistjournalists: fairness to the audience, to contributors, and to the individuals and institutions we focus on and investigate.
...
Where possible, we should obtain consent from the people we feature. This does not include people we film in public places. Filming is permissible in public places, and although the law changes in some jurisdictions, we should challenge anyone who tries to prevent legitimate journalism and storytelling from taking place.
...
Secret filming is illegal in many countries and should be avoided. However, within the legal confines of the individual jurisdiction, secret recording can be acceptable in a very small number of cases. Firstly, there must be clear prime prima facie evidence of illegality and wrongdoing on the part of the subject. There should be a self-evident public interest case for exposure. Secondly, every attempt to record the subject openly must have been made. Thirdly, the subject must be given at least two written requests for an interview. If all these attempts fail, and the public interest test still applies, the secret filming can take place.
...
Make sure that what you upload is legitimate and true. Falling foul of libel and defamation laws will have serious financial implications.
Court Orders, Reporting Restrictions, and Contempt
Please ensure awareness of the laws regarding court reporting in different countries and jurisdictions. For example, once a case is active in the UK, it is illegal to report any details of the case before a trial begins. Even then, only what is said in court is reportable.
Also, be aware that judges often issue ‘orders’ before and during trials. These orders may contain specific reporting restrictions or the granting of anonymity to a witness or even the defendant. It is the reporter’s responsibility to know if an order has been made.
...