Information Press publishes independent, California-focused news and explanatory material about government, housing, transportation, business, finance, climate, healthcare, education, technology, consumer affairs, and community developments. This Editorial Policy describes how we make coverage decisions, evaluate evidence, distinguish editorial formats, address conflicts, and correct mistakes.
Accuracy, fairness, transparency, and independence are practical standards for publication rather than claims of perfection. Review requirements depend on the significance of the claim, the available evidence, the urgency of the subject, and the potential harm caused by an error.
Our Editorial Standards at a Glance
- Independence : Advertising and commercial relationships must not determine editorial findings.
- Evidence : Significant claims require evidence suitable to their subject and consequences.
- Attribution : Sources, quotations, data, and third-party reporting must be represented accurately.
- Fairness : Context, uncertainty, and opportunities to respond matter in potentially damaging coverage.
- Transparency : Readers should distinguish news, analysis, opinion, reviews, and commercial messages.
- Accountability : Material factual errors require review and appropriate correction.
Independence, Editorial Scope, and Conflicts
Responsibility for Published Work
Information Press is responsible for the editorial material published under its name. Subject selection, verification, interpretation, article presentation, updates, and corrections must be determined by editorial standards - not by the preferences of advertisers, potential sponsors, sources, politicians, or organizations being covered. Editorial independence means that the basis for a conclusion should be visible in the evidence and reasoning, not in the preferences of a commercial contact or interested party. A subject can be newsworthy even when the resulting coverage is unfavorable to those involved.
Advertising relationships do not buy favorable coverage, guaranteed publication, deletion of accurate criticism, higher ranking positions, or preferred editorial conclusions. We do not currently sell paid reviews, paid editorial rankings, sponsored articles, or affiliate-linked recommendations. Paid visibility does not determine editorial ranking position. Material commercial relationships that bear on coverage should be disclosed where relevant.
Human editorial oversight is responsible for the final decision to publish. Michael Bennett serves as Co-Founder, while Jasmine Brooks and Ryan O'Connor serve as Editors, each with distinct subject responsibilities. Information Press is accountable for its editorial content and corrections.
Story Selection and Newsworthiness
We prioritize California, particularly San Luis Obispo and the Central Coast, and significant national developments affecting our readers. Topics may include public policy, legislation, housing and tenant rights, the local and national economy, personal finance, insurance, environmental hazards, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and consumer protection.
Stories are assessed for public interest, reader usefulness, timeliness, source availability, practical impact, and the opportunity to explain a complex issue accurately. We aim not to publish unsupported rumors or promotional material merely because it is popular. The nature of an emerging event may justify a brief, clearly qualified report rather than an unsupported detailed account.
Material Conflicts of Interest
Anyone contributing to factual editorial work should disclose material financial, professional, personal, or organizational connections that could influence the coverage. Paid access, complimentary products, travel, gifts, or privileged commercial relationships must not determine published conclusions.
When a relevant conflict exists, suitable responses can include disclosure, extra verification, reassignment, or declining the proposed work. Sponsored or promotional claims are not a substitute for evidence. A source's position or expertise should be described accurately rather than invented.
Sourcing, Verification, and Attribution
Choosing Credible Sources
Primary, direct, and authoritative sources are preferred where relevant and accessible. These may include public records, official state and federal publications, regulatory filings, legislation, court documents, original research, public datasets, and direct attributable statements. Sources must be evaluated for currency, accuracy, jurisdiction, methods, potential interests, and proximity to the facts. Each source should be used for a claim it can genuinely establish. A document reporting a proposal should not be presented as proof that the proposal became law, and a company's description of its own product should not be treated as independent confirmation of performance.
Reputable secondary news reporting may provide useful context. When we rely on another outlet's work, it should be attributed. Repeating a fact from a second news website does not demonstrate independent confirmation if both sites ultimately rely on the same unverified claim.
Company statements, press releases, and marketing descriptions are source material, not automatic proof. Where a claim is significant, we should seek documentation or appropriately qualify the statement. Links to important source documents should be included when practical and useful to readers.
Named and Confidential Sources
Named, on-the-record sources are preferred because readers can better evaluate their relevance and credibility. Information Press rarely considers unnamed sources. An exception requires a genuine public-interest reason, credible firsthand knowledge, a justified risk or obstacle to identification, and the identity being known to a responsible human editorial reviewer.
Anonymous sourcing is not a license for unsupported allegations, personal attacks, promotional claims, or invented quotations. Serious anonymous allegations should not ordinarily be published without independent corroboration. We do not guarantee that ordinary email provides anonymity or confidential communication. See our Unnamed Sources Policy .
Verifying Claims Before Publication
Significant claims should be checked against appropriate evidence before publication. This includes names and titles, locations, effective dates, quotations, statistics, comparative figures, regulatory requirements, and assertions about an identified person or organization.
Verification should consider what the underlying source actually says, not only how a third party summarizes it. Quotes must retain the speaker's meaning. Statistics need relevant units, periods, definitions, and context; comparisons should not obscure differences in methodology. Where documents conflict, the article should explain the discrepancy or avoid expressing unwarranted certainty.
A working process includes research, preparation, review, source and link checks, sensitive-claim review, and human approval. We do not describe this as a promise that every error can be prevented. Our detailed standards are in the Fact-Checking Policy .
Attributing and Licensing Third-Party Material
We aim to distinguish original editorial material from quoted reporting, submitted statements, official public documents, and licensed media. Source attribution does not eliminate every copyright obligation. Quotations must be accurate, reasonably limited, and appropriately credited when required.
We should not present external reporting or photographs as original work by Information Press. Misleading republication, invented interviews, and false credits are inconsistent with these standards. Corrections to attribution should be handled when errors are identified.
Fairness, Context, and Content Labels
Fairness and Right of Response
We aim to represent people, organizations, and competing claims accurately. Fairness does not require false equivalence between evidence-based findings and unsupported assertions. It does require relevant context, a clear distinction between allegations and established facts, and consideration of credible responses to significant criticism. Clear labels help readers understand whether they are encountering verified reporting, explanatory context, a judgment based on stated criteria, or an attributed viewpoint. That distinction can be as important as the accuracy of an individual sentence.
Where an article contains serious, potentially damaging allegations about an identifiable person or organization, we should consider a reasonable opportunity for response when practical. A decision not to respond must not be treated as an admission. We should avoid exposing sensitive personal details without a legitimate public-interest reason and avoid unnecessary harm when reporting on vulnerable individuals.
News, Analysis, Opinion, and Editorial Formats
Readers should be able to distinguish different editorial functions. News describes documented developments; Analysis interprets evidence and implications; Explainers clarify complicated subjects; Guides organize practical information; Reviews and Rankings compare available options using relevant criteria; and Opinion , if published, clearly indicates commentary or judgment.
Interviews must involve real attributable participants and accurately represent what they said. Press releases can inform reporting but should not be passed off as independent journalism; reproduced promotional releases, if ever published, must be clearly identified. We do not currently offer sponsored editorial articles or partner content as a paid publishing format. Labels such as “Sponsored” describe a possible disclosure standard, not a current offering.
Headlines, captions, summaries written by editors, thumbnails, and social descriptions should match the underlying material and must not mislead readers with manufactured certainty or sensational claims.
Sensitive Reporting, Images, and Data
Health, Law, Finance, Safety, and Other YMYL Topics
Content involving healthcare, mental health, law, taxes, personal finance, investments, insurance, housing rights, emergencies, or personal safety requires additional scrutiny because inaccurate information can affect important life decisions. In these subjects, a missing date, jurisdiction, qualification, or denominator can materially change what a statement means. Context should therefore accompany claims whose apparent simplicity could conceal important limitations.
For legal and housing matters, we should identify the correct jurisdiction and effective date; for finance, identify costs, qualifications, risk, and relevant data dates; for health, rely on suitable authoritative evidence and avoid unsupported diagnoses, treatment claims, or outcome guarantees; for emergencies, prioritize current guidance from responsible public agencies.
Information Press provides general information, not personalized medical, legal, financial, tax, investment, mental health, safety, or other professional advice . Readers should verify changing rules and consult properly qualified professionals or authorities when their particular circumstances require it.
AI Tools and Illustrations
Information Press permits AI only for selected visual illustrations . We do not use AI for editorial drafts, news writing, translation, document summarization, source monitoring, headline variations, grammar rewriting, or automatic tagging and categorization. No AI system is an authoritative factual source or an independent publisher.
Synthetic visuals should be reviewed for inappropriate details or misleading associations and labeled where necessary to distinguish them from documentary photographs. We prohibit fabricated sources, quotes, testimony, named people, credentials, and representations that falsely imply that an actual event was photographed. For real disasters, official actions, or sensitive incidents, authentic source images should be preferred when appropriate and available. See AI Use Policy .
Photography, Captions, Data, and Charts
Images should reflect their actual source and context. An unrelated illustrative photograph must not be presented as if it documents the described event. Relevant photo credits, permissions, and licensing conditions should be respected, and captions should distinguish illustrations from genuine documentary material.
Charts and data visualizations should avoid misleading axes, selective periods, unlabeled assumptions, and unsupported comparisons. Important sources, time periods, units, and methodological limitations should be given when relevant. Readers should not be led to believe a modeled or estimated figure is a direct measurement.
Reviews, Rankings, and Commercial Separation
Independent Rankings and Review Methodology
Research-based comparisons may include banking products, insurance, services, technology, housing costs, or education data. Items should be selected for relevance and availability of credible information, not for an advertiser's payment. Rankings should disclose the meaningful criteria, source dates, limitations, and any quantitative weighting or scoring used. Readers should be able to distinguish a documented comparison from a universal recommendation. Even a carefully researched ranking may change when eligibility, costs, product terms, or a reader's circumstances differ.
Not all rankings use numerical scores: some depend on a disclosed editorial assessment. Claims of hands-on testing, personal experience, customer satisfaction, or professional evaluation must not be made unless supported by actual work and evidence. Paid placements do not determine rankings, and advertisers cannot purchase positive recommendations. See Rankings and Reviews Methodology .
Advertising Disclosures and Editorial Boundaries
Information Press uses Google AdSense for display advertising. Advertising is separate from editorial decisions. We do not offer direct paid editorial campaigns, sponsored articles, affiliate-link commissions, lead generation, or paid editorial rankings.
Advertisements, if active, must remain identifiable as commercial content. Editorial articles should not be written as disguised marketing or published in exchange for a positive review. Source or company submissions may be considered on their informational merits without payment, an obligation to publish, or guaranteed favorable treatment. Learn more from Advertise With Us and Sponsored Content Policy .
Corrections and Reader Accountability
Correcting and Clarifying Published Work
Credible claims of error should be assessed against source documents and the published text. Verified material errors should be corrected promptly as reasonably possible. An update adds new developments; a clarification repairs ambiguity; a correction fixes incorrect information. Significant corrections may need a clearly identified note, while harmless typographical changes may not. A correction should address the factual meaning that readers received, not merely adjust wording without resolving the underlying issue. A disagreement over emphasis should be distinguished from evidence that a material statement was inaccurate.
Corrections are not sold, negotiated as a commercial benefit, or granted automatically because a business dislikes accurate reporting. Reports should include an article URL, the specific issue, a reliable supporting source, and contact details if follow-up is useful. Send concerns to corrections@informationpress.net . See our Corrections Policy .
Reader Feedback and Questions
Readers may suggest stories, identify gaps, submit relevant records, or report language, accessibility, or sourcing concerns. We assess requests by evidence, relevance, and public value; publication and personal replies are not guaranteed. General and editorial correspondence: earthday@informationpress.net . Specific corrections: corrections@informationpress.net .
A reader's disagreement with analysis does not itself establish a factual error. Nonetheless, credible evidence or a demonstrated missing qualification may justify a correction or clarification. See Feedback and Contact .