Editorial Standards and Ethics

We produce original local journalism.

Day.News is not an aggregator. We generate original reporting for every community we serve — sourced from public records, government proceedings, local business activity, community events, and direct contributions from local residents. Our coverage is built from primary sources, not rewritten from other outlets. When we reference external reporting, we attribute it clearly and verify the underlying facts independently.

We are powered by AI and accountable to people.

Our newsroom uses AI journalists to produce local coverage at a scale no traditional newsroom can match. Every AI-generated article follows the same editorial standards as human-written journalism: factual accuracy, source attribution, fairness, and clarity. AI authorship is never hidden — each AI writer is a named persona with a consistent editorial voice, and all AI-generated content is identified as such.

We publish real voices from real communities.

Day.News provides a platform for community members to contribute news, commentary, and local knowledge directly. Resident contributors are verified individuals — not anonymous accounts — and their submissions are subject to our editorial standards for factual accuracy. Contributor content is clearly distinguished from staff reporting. We believe the people who live in a community are its most valuable news source, and we build tools to make their voices heard without requiring them to be professional journalists.

We show our work.

Every article published by Day.News includes an editorial transparency disclosure. This disclosure identifies the content type (original reporting, AI-generated, contributor submission, or analysis), the primary sources used, and any known limitations in the available information. When source material carries identifiable bias — financial interest, political affiliation, institutional motivation — we disclose that context so readers can weigh the information accordingly. When we cannot independently verify a claim but believe it is newsworthy, we say so explicitly rather than presenting it as established fact. Transparency is not a disclaimer buried in fine print — it is a visible, consistent feature of every piece of content we publish.

We source comprehensively, not selectively.

We monitor all external news sources regardless of their political orientation, ownership, or editorial stance. We do not select sources based on agreement — we collect comprehensively because blind spots are more dangerous than bad data. This monitoring informs our awareness and provides context for our original reporting. It does not replace it.

We distinguish between facts, claims, and opinions.

Facts are verified independently before publication. Claims are attributed to their source and labeled as unverified when we cannot confirm them. Opinions are never presented as news — when we include them, they are clearly identified as such and attributed.

We do not pursue balance for its own sake.

When a factual question has a verified answer, we report the answer. When a policy question has legitimate competing positions, we present those positions with their supporting evidence and let readers evaluate them. We present opposing positions when there is a legitimate factual or policy disagreement — not when one position is a verifiable falsehood. A unanimous city council vote is not a controversy. A condemned building does not need a defender. Giving equal weight to verified facts and disproven claims is not balance — it is misinformation.

We recognize that bias takes many forms.

Not all misinformation maps to a political spectrum. Much of it is financially motivated, algorithmically amplified, institutionally convenient, or the product of lazy reporting. Our fact-checking process examines the source, the incentive, and the evidence — not where a claim falls on a left-right axis. When the facts clearly support one position, we report that without false equivalence. The truth is not always in the middle, and pretending otherwise is its own form of bias.

We inform. We do not persuade.

Our role is to present verified facts with enough context that readers can draw their own conclusions. We do not draw conclusions for them. When analysis is warranted, it is clearly labeled as analysis and separated from factual reporting. Day.News has no political agenda, no editorial endorsements, and no preferred outcomes.

We welcome public commentary. We do not host abuse.

Day.News provides comment and discussion spaces because local journalism exists to serve community conversation, not replace it. Reader commentary is opinion, not news, and is clearly labeled as such. We do not edit or moderate comments based on political viewpoint, agreement with our reporting, or popularity of opinion.

We require that all commenters be verified individuals using their real identity. Anonymous commentary is not permitted. This is not a restriction on speech — it is an expectation of accountability. The same standard we hold ourselves to, we extend to those who participate in our platform.

We remove commentary that contains verifiable disinformation presented as fact, direct threats or incitement to violence, targeted harassment of individuals, or content that violates applicable law. We do not remove commentary because it is critical of Day.News, uncomfortable, unpopular, or politically inconvenient. When we remove content, we disclose that removal occurred and the specific standard it violated.

Commentary does not represent the views of Day.News. We will never alter, selectively display, or algorithmically amplify comments to favor any narrative or outcome.

When we get it wrong, we say so.

We correct the record prominently, explain what we got wrong and why, and update our processes to prevent recurrence. Corrections are never buried or quietly edited. Accountability to our readers is not optional — it is the foundation of the trust we ask them to place in us.