Mobilized News editorial standards
Connected media for an interconnected world.
Mobilized News exists to help people understand what is happening, how systems connect, and what people can do with credible knowledge. Our responsibility is to the public: to report accurately, question power, examine solutions and make participation more informed.
We welcome contributions from people everywhere. Openness to participation comes with a shared responsibility for accuracy, fairness and accountability.
Public interest comes first
Our editorial decisions prioritize human dignity, human rights, ecological health and the well-being of communities. We examine who benefits from a decision, who bears its costs, whose knowledge is missing and what consequences may follow.
We are nonpartisan. We assess governments, businesses, institutions, movements and proposed solutions by their evidence and actions. Our mission does not exempt a favored organization or idea from scrutiny.
Evidence before assertion
We verify material factual claims before publication. We prioritize original documents, direct observation, relevant research, reliable data and people with firsthand knowledge. We independently corroborate contested or consequential claims wherever possible.
A press release establishes what an organization says; it does not, by itself, establish that its claims are true. Repetition across outlets is not independent confirmation when all accounts rely on the same source.
We identify sources clearly and provide original-source links where practical. Quotes must be accurate, traceable and faithful to their context. We never invent quotations, interviews, sources, dates or events.
When verification is incomplete, we explain the limitation, narrow the claim or withhold publication. We distinguish the date something happened from the date it was announced or reported.
Make the connections—and test them
Our reporting examines relationships across energy, food, health, finance, democracy, technology, mobility, communities, media and whole-system design.
We ask what caused a problem, what sustains it, and how a proposed response affects other systems. We examine incentives, ownership, governance, access to resources and accountability.
A connection is not automatically a cause. We identify documented relationships, distinguish analysis from established findings and consider evidence that challenges our interpretation. Whole-system thinking is a method of inquiry, not a predetermined conclusion.
Report solutions with the same rigor as problems
A compelling idea is a starting point for reporting. To assess a proposed solution, we ask:
- What problem does it address, and for whom?
- What has actually been implemented?
- What evidence demonstrates results, over what period and at what scale?
- What did it cost, and what resources or conditions made it possible?
- Who benefited, who was excluded, and what harms or trade-offs emerged?
- What failed, remains uncertain or would need to change elsewhere?
We distinguish proposals, pilots, operating projects and independently evaluated outcomes. We report setbacks and unintended consequences. A successful local project is not automatically a universal model.
Claims about sustainability, health, democracy or social impact require evidence, including when made by organizations aligned with our mission.
Make the type of content clear
Readers should be able to distinguish:
- Reporting: verified facts, attributed accounts and relevant context.
- Analysis: evidence-based interpretation, with reasoning and uncertainties explained.
- Opinion: an identified contributor’s perspective; factual claims still require verification.
- Community submissions and listings: information supplied by participants, with its origin and review status made clear.
An Exchange listing or event listing is not a certification, guarantee or editorial endorsement. Recommendations and invitations to act must make relevant costs, interests and uncertainties clear.
Independence and conflicts of interest
Advertisers, donors, sponsors and partners may not purchase favorable reporting, suppress unfavorable findings or approve independent editorial coverage.
Contributors must disclose employment, funding, ownership, political involvement, personal relationships and other interests relevant to their submissions. Someone reporting on their own project must identify that relationship.
Editors decide whether disclosure is sufficient or whether another reporter or reviewer is needed. Relevant relationships must also be disclosed to readers. We do not accept gifts, payments or benefits in exchange for favorable coverage.
Fairness, dignity and the right to respond
We include people directly affected by the issues we cover and respect lived experience alongside technical expertise. We avoid stereotypes, dehumanizing language and unnecessary exposure of private information.
Before publishing significant allegations, we make reasonable efforts to contact the person or organization concerned, explain the substance of the claims and allow a fair opportunity to respond. We report relevant responses accurately and state when no response was received by the publication deadline.
Fairness does not require giving unsupported claims equal weight with well-established evidence. Allegations must remain clearly distinguished from established findings.
We take particular care with children, survivors, vulnerable communities and people facing retaliation. We explain intended use when seeking sensitive testimony and assess whether identifying details are necessary to the public interest.
Sources, privacy and consent
We normally identify sources. Anonymity requires editorial approval, a credible reason and an assessment of the source’s knowledge and motives. We seek corroboration and explain the reason for anonymity without exposing the source.
We do not promise confidentiality without considering whether we can protect it. We minimize collection and publication of personal data, and contributors must not upload sensitive source material to unapproved services.
Open participation, editorial approval
Journalists, researchers, educators, community members, practitioners and people with firsthand experience may contribute. Professional credentials are not a prerequisite; honesty and evidence are.
Editorial submissions must receive approval from an authorized editor before publication. Registration or submission does not guarantee publication or confer publishing authority.
Contributors must provide accurate authorship information to editors, relevant sources, disclosures and permission to use submitted material. They must distinguish their own observations from information obtained elsewhere.
Editors may request evidence, revise a submission, seek another perspective, decline publication or withdraw material that fails these standards. Material edits must preserve factual meaning; substantive changes to a contributor’s argument should be discussed with the contributor.
Original work, images and artificial intelligence
We credit original reporting, research, photography and creative work. Attribution alone does not replace permission or an appropriate license. Plagiarism, fabricated reporting and misleading reuse are unacceptable.
Images, recordings, charts and captions must represent their subject accurately. File images, illustrations, reconstructions and synthetic media must be identified where confusion is possible. We do not present generated images as documentary evidence.
Artificial intelligence may assist research organization, transcription, translation or drafting. It is not a source or a substitute for verification. A human editor remains responsible for every published item, including automated briefings.
AI can be utilized to provide context with clarity. All features require and receive human oversight. . Published material must disclose AI use when it materially affects how readers should understand its authorship, evidence or authenticity. Editors must check generated claims, quotations and citations against original sources.
Clarity, accessibility and useful action
We use clear language, descriptive headings and concise explanations without removing necessary context. Headlines must accurately reflect the reporting. We avoid sensationalism, deceptive images and claims stronger than the evidence supports.
Research coverage should explain study limitations, relevant funding and whether findings establish association or causation. Early findings and preliminary reports must be identified as such.
Practical next steps should help people make informed choices. Participation is voluntary. We do not imply that one action guarantees a result or that readers must support a particular organization to engage with our journalism.
Corrections, complaints and accountability
Readers and contributors can report a concern through our Contact page. Please include the article or listing URL, the disputed statement and any supporting evidence. Do not send sensitive personal information through a general contact form.
The responsible editor reviews the concern and supporting material. Where that editor has a relevant conflict, another available editor or independent reviewer should assess it.
We correct material errors promptly after verification. A visible, dated correction explains what was wrong and what changed. Routine spelling or formatting fixes do not require a correction notice; substantive factual changes do.
Updates must not disguise earlier errors. If an article’s central findings cannot be supported, we retract or withdraw it with an explanation, while considering privacy and safety. Where feasible, corrections should accompany versions distributed through our own channels and be communicated to publishing partners.
These standards apply to Mobilized’s editorial work across formats. We review them as the network develops, date substantive revisions and remain open to evidence-based criticism of our own reporting.
Good needs better distribution. Trust requires evidence, independence and accountability.