Information Press is committed to publishing California-focused news, reporting, analysis, explainers, and consumer information with accuracy, fairness, independence, and transparency. Ethical practice means checking the information behind a story, distinguishing evidence from interpretation, considering likely consequences for people affected, and acknowledging meaningful uncertainty.
This policy sets out Information Press's standards for source evaluation, editorial fairness, conflicts of interest, sensitive subjects, images, advertising, rankings, and corrections. These standards apply to editorial decisions and published content.
Our Ethical Principles: Independence, Accuracy, Fairness, Conflicts
- Editorial Independence
-
Information Press selects and reviews material according to public interest, reader relevance, timeliness, factual support, and the significance of a development to California or a relevant national audience. Editorial judgment must not be sold as an advertising product. Commercial relationships do not determine independent editorial conclusions. An ethical choice can require more than presenting competing statements: it also requires weighing their evidence, identifying relevant uncertainty, and avoiding unsupported implications.
Advertisers, public officials, companies, advocacy organizations, and prospective partners should not approve or dictate independent coverage. No contributor or publishing representative may promise favorable treatment, a positive review, a preferred headline, or a ranking position in exchange for a payment or other benefit. Legitimate questions and factual corrections from any party may still be evaluated on their merits.
Information Press is the responsible publisher. Michael Bennett is Co-Founder, while Jasmine Brooks and Ryan O'Connor are Editors with different coverage areas. Their work is subject to the publication's rules on evidence, attribution, independence, and corrections.
- Accuracy, Verification, and Context
-
Factual statements should be checked against relevant, reliable evidence before publication. The appropriate depth of verification varies with a claim's significance and the foreseeable consequences of error. Names, dates, locations, legal effective dates, numbers, research findings, official decisions, quotations, and source links require particular care when central to a story.
Editors should review whether a headline accurately represents the article, whether quotations preserve their original meaning, and whether visual or numerical presentation distorts context. Figures should include relevant units, data periods, and geographic boundaries. A press release, company marketing claim, or secondary report is not automatically independent proof of its assertions.
When facts remain uncertain or conflicting, an article should make that uncertainty visible. Preliminary estimates, allegations, predictions, and expert interpretations should not be written as settled findings. A developing story may be postponed, qualified, or updated as verifiable information becomes available. We cannot guarantee that all material will be error-free; corrections are part of responsible publishing.
- Fairness and the Right to Respond
-
Fairness means representing relevant statements accurately, investigating substantial claims, avoiding misleading omissions, and allowing evidence to guide conclusions. It does not require treating unsupported claims as equally credible as documented facts or manufacturing a false balance between evidence and speculation.
Serious allegations affecting an identifiable person or organization require a particularly strong factual basis. Where reasonable and practical, the subject of a significant allegation should have an opportunity to offer a relevant response before publication. A refusal or lack of reply is not evidence that an allegation is true. We should attribute allegations, describe their status, and take care with criminal, professional, and reputational implications.
Avoid unnecessary exposure of sensitive personal information, private correspondence, or identifying details unrelated to public interest. Reporting should consider the potential harm of photographs, descriptions, and unnecessarily sensational language, especially during emergencies, traumatic events, or legal disputes.
- Conflicts of Interest and Personal Benefits
-
Contributors and people who participate in editorial decisions should disclose interests that could influence or appear to influence their work. Examples may include financial stakes, paid consulting, gifts, political or commercial relationships, personal relationships, complimentary travel, products, or unusually favorable access. Such interests may require disclosure, recusal, additional review, or declining an assignment.
A gift or sample does not entitle a provider to a favorable assessment. Editorial conclusions must not be bought through advertising, hospitality, advance access, or compensation. Where a material relationship affects the way a review or report could be understood, readers should receive a clear disclosure, not a vague assurance of independence.
People involved in editorial decisions should disclose financial, personal, or commercial interests that could affect coverage. The relevant question is whether an interest could influence a reporting decision or undermine fair treatment of the subject; any such concern should be assessed under these ethical principles.
Sources, Confidentiality, and Responsible Treatment of People
Sources, Attribution, and Confidentiality
Named, attributable sources are preferred, especially official documents, original research, public records, agency statistics, regulatory information, and direct statements that can be independently assessed. Secondary news reports may provide context but should be clearly attributed. The strength of the evidence, not the fame or status of a source, determines how much weight a claim deserves. The public-interest value of a claim does not automatically justify publishing private or reputationally damaging details. The necessity, reliability, and context of the information still matter.
Information Press rarely considers unnamed sources. A source's identity must be known to the responsible human editorial reviewer, the reason for anonymity must be justified by public interest and credible risk, and significant assertions should be corroborated where possible. Anonymous sourcing is inappropriate as a shortcut for spreading rumors, attacking competitors, making unsourced accusations, or creating invented quotations.
Promises of confidentiality should never be assumed simply because someone sends an email. Attribution conditions should be discussed before sensitive material is shared where feasible. Ordinary email cannot guarantee anonymity or absolute security. See the Unnamed Sources Policy for specific procedures.
Sensitive Reporting and Avoiding Unnecessary Harm
Information Press reports on housing rights, healthcare, insurance, taxes, finance, legal developments, public policy, climate emergencies, and safety matters. These topics may affect major life decisions and require caution with terminology, source dates, regulatory jurisdictions, and the practical limits of the information presented.
Content is informational and is not personalized medical, legal, financial, tax, investment, mental health, safety, or other professional advice. We do not offer personal diagnoses, treatment plans, legal representation, individualized tax solutions, or promises of investment success. A claim that an approach is guaranteed, risk-free, or universally appropriate needs stronger evidence than an unsupported testimonial or promotional statement can provide.
Health-related claims should be considered against qualified medical sources and relevant research. Housing and legal claims must identify applicable law and locality when material. Financial coverage should distinguish facts about rates, fees, and risks from speculation and personal recommendations. Emergency reporting should prioritize current official notices and should not represent outdated information as an active instruction.
Commercial Boundaries and Editorial Judgments
Information Press uses Google AdSense for display advertising. An ad displayed beside a story does not establish endorsement of the advertiser. Advertising may help support a publication, but it does not purchase editorial influence or exemption from source verification. The decisive distinction is between a commercial message whose purpose is persuasion and an editorial conclusion that must stand on independently evaluated information.
Paid sponsored articles, advertorials, branded editorial features, and paid partner content are not currently offered . Press releases and company statements may be evaluated as information sources without promising publication. If sponsored publishing were introduced, it would require clear labeling and transparent commercial disclosure; independent news would remain separate.
Advertisements should be distinguishable from editorial reporting. Concerns about potentially misleading advertising or commercial labeling can be sent to advertising@informationpress.net . See the Sponsored Content Policy and Advertise With Us .
Information Press may publish data-based comparisons, rankings, guides, and reviews. These should explain their scope, relevant criteria, information sources, and limitations. A product assessed using public documentation must not be described as independently tested or purchased unless that occurred. Numerical ratings should not imply a precision unsupported by their methodology.
Paid visibility does not determine editorial ranking position. Advertisers cannot purchase favorable ratings, positive reviews, inclusion in a supposedly independent comparison, or a recommendation. Sponsored ranking positions, paid editorial reviews, and affiliate commissions are not part of the current site model.
A review may be amended when documented terms, prices, laws, or features change. A company's objection does not itself establish that a rating is incorrect; factual errors should be assessed against the source material and stated methodology. See the Rankings and Reviews Methodology .
Images, Data, and AI: Truthfulness of the Evidence
Images, Charts, Data, and Visual Context
Visuals can mislead even when the surrounding article is accurate. Images must be relevant to their captions and should not imply a documented scene or participant that the publication has not verified. Cropping, selection, graphic labels, and placement should not materially distort events. Rights and applicable usage restrictions must be considered. A synthetic illustration can be accurately labeled yet still mislead if the caption attributes it to a real event. The surrounding words and image must convey the same factual status.
Charts and tables should identify meaningful data sources, dates, measurement definitions, and limitations. Avoid distorted axes, cherry-picked comparisons without context, unexplained ranking weights, or graphs that create unwarranted certainty. Where a visual is conceptual rather than documentary, the distinction should be clear to readers.
Information Press may use AI-generated illustrations only . Such illustrations are not evidence that an event happened, should be labeled when their synthetic origin could otherwise mislead, and may not fabricate documentary scenes, official records, real-person actions, medical evidence, or financial outcomes. Human editorial oversight remains responsible for choosing, verifying, and publishing visual material.
AI Boundaries and Fabrication Prohibitions
Information Press does not use AI to generate editorial articles, initial drafts, translations, document summaries, headlines, automated source monitoring, editorial research organization, or automatic publication. Ordinary website software and source feeds should not be mistaken for AI-authored journalism. The publication's current AI use is limited to selected illustrations.
Fabricating sources, interviews, quotations, research, professional qualifications, people's identities, real events, or records is prohibited. Reporting must be supported by genuine sources; a byline must accurately identify the author of the material.
The AI Use Policy explains disclosure and safeguards for synthetic illustrations in detail.
After Publication: Corrections and Reader Accountability
Corrections, Updates, and Accountability
Verified material factual errors should be corrected as promptly as reasonably possible. Significant revisions may require a note identifying the nature of the change. Clarifications may be appropriate where wording was technically accurate but misleading or lacked critical context. Routine grammar, spelling, and formatting adjustments may not require public notices. Accountability involves explaining a substantive correction without treating every disagreement, change in circumstances, or new viewpoint as proof of an original error.
Correction requests from readers, sources, public officials, companies, or advertisers should be evaluated on evidence rather than commercial influence. A complaint that a story is unfavorable or that a person dislikes a justified conclusion does not automatically warrant removal. Where new evidence materially changes a developing story, the page may be updated to explain the development.
Send factual concerns to corrections@informationpress.net , including the article URL, specific error, relevant evidence, and contact details if needed. See our Corrections Policy for the distinction between a correction, clarification, update, and minor edit.