EDITORIAL STANDARDS

1. Accuracy and evidence

Material factual claims should be supported by evidence that can withstand scrutiny. We prioritise primary records including official decisions, minutes, accounts, registers, Freedom of Information and Environmental Information disclosures, correspondence and original source material.

We take reasonable steps to verify information before publication. AI output, anonymous claims and social-media posts are not treated as evidence merely because they exist.

2. Fact, allegation and opinion

We distinguish established fact from allegation, inference, analysis and opinion. Allegations are attributed to their source. Where WATCH draws an inference from evidence, we make that distinction clear and do not present suspicion as established fact.

3. Political impartiality

WATCH Sussex scrutinises conduct, decisions, spending and public records rather than political allegiance. The same standards apply to Labour, Conservative, Reform UK, Liberal Democrat, Green, independent and other political representatives and candidates.

Our reporting may examine political claims and policy effects, but WATCH does not endorse parties or candidates.

4. Right of reply and fairness

Where reporting contains significant criticism of an identifiable person or organisation, we seek an appropriate opportunity for response before publication where circumstances warrant it. Responses are represented fairly and in context.

A failure or decision not to respond is reported only as that. It is not evidence that an allegation is true or that wrongdoing occurred.

5. Corrections

If we establish that a significant factual statement is wrong, we correct it promptly and with appropriate prominence. We do not use silent editing to conceal a material correction.

Minor typographical, formatting or non-substantive amendments may be corrected without a formal correction notice.

6. Complaints

Questions, correction requests and editorial complaints can be sent to watchsussex@proton.me.

We aim to acknowledge an editorial complaint within 7 calendar days and provide a substantive response within 21 calendar days. Complex matters may take longer; where practicable, we will explain why.

RIGHT TO REPLY / CORRECT US →

7. Privacy and public interest

The fact that information can be found publicly does not automatically justify republishing it. We consider relevance, proportionality, privacy and the public interest before publishing personal information.

Intrusion into private life must have a legitimate editorial justification and should not exceed what the public-interest purpose requires.

8. Sources and attribution

We identify the origin of third-party material where appropriate and do not present another publisher's reporting or research as our own. Where confidentiality has been agreed with a source, we protect that commitment subject to applicable law.

Information from an anonymous or confidential source is assessed for reliability and corroborated where reasonably possible before it is relied upon.

9. AI-assisted work

WATCH Sussex may use digital and AI-assisted tools for research support, document analysis, organisation, drafting and production. These tools do not determine what we publish and their output does not constitute evidence.

Published material remains subject to WATCH Sussex editorial review, source checking and evidential standards.

10. Social media

These standards apply to WATCH Sussex's official social-media accounts as well as the website. A shorter format does not lower the threshold for accuracy, fairness or responsible attribution.

11. Serious allegations

Claims involving dishonesty, corruption, misconduct, conflicts of interest, wrongdoing or personal responsibility receive heightened pre-publication scrutiny. We distinguish documented responsibility from speculation about blame and seek appropriate right of reply.

12. Editorial control

WATCH Sussex retains editorial control over material published under its name. Contributor material is commissioned, checked and edited against these standards before publication. Investigation and publication are separate decisions: an issue being investigated does not mean that an allegation or conclusion is ready to publish.