Editorial Policy

This document explains the editorial standards that govern Haldia Live: how we verify information before publication, how we work with sources, how we correct errors at proportionate prominence, how we pursue fairness without false balance, and how we keep a durable separation between journalism and commercial interests. It is an internal policy statement for readers—not legal advice.

Verification before publication

Reporters and editors cross-check consequential claims against documents, official statements, corroborating witnesses where available, and—when appropriate—independent experts. We do not treat anonymous “tips” as sufficient grounding for a headline unless the information is independently checkable or supported by public records. On contested topics, we distinguish what is established fact, what is disputed, and what remains unknown rather than flattening nuance into certainty.

Sources, anonymity, and safety

We prefer on-the-record sources because they are easier for readers to evaluate. Confidential sourcing is used sparingly, only when (a) the information is clearly in the public interest, (b) disclosure could foreseeably cause serious harm, and (c) a senior editor has weighed risks and benefits. We support reasonable operational security practices, but we do not promise risk-free communication; digital safety is shared responsibility.

Right of reply and fairness

When we publish substantial allegations about individuals, companies, or public bodies, we seek comment in a reasonable timeframe unless immediate publication is justified by an urgent public safety issue or a legal constraint. If a party declines to respond, we may note the refusal so readers understand what diligence occurred. Fairness does not require false balance: not every claim deserves equal weight when evidence is uneven.

Headlines, social promotion, and aggregation

Headlines and social copy should faithfully reflect the article’s strongest verified claims. We avoid sensational packaging that distorts magnitude, causality, or probability. When we rely on other publishers’ reporting, we credit clearly, link when appropriate, and add original value— context, verification, or local impact—rather than thin rewrites.

Visual journalism and integrity

Photographs and video should not mislead about time, place, or circumstance. Routine processing (color, crop) must not change news meaning. Heavy compositing, staging, or illustrative imagery should be labeled when a reasonable reader could confuse it for documentary evidence.

Sensitive topics: crime, victims, and self-harm

We avoid gratuitous detail that retraumatizes victims or facilitates identification when courts or norms suggest restraint. Coverage of suicide and self-harm avoids method minutiae, sensational maps of locations, or romanticized framing. During elections, we emphasize checkable facts, candidate claims worth verifying, and proportional context rather than partisan cheerleading.

Corrections ladder

Minor errors (spelling, dates) may be fixed directly. Factual errors that change meaning are corrected in the body and typically accompanied by a dated correction note. When a mistake is serious or could have misled readers in a durable way, an editor’s note explains what was wrong, what was changed, and why. To request a correction, contact us with the URL, the inaccurate passage, and—if you can—primary evidence supporting the fix.

Conflicts of interest, gifts, and transparency

Staff disclose personal financial interests, close family interests in covered entities, or active political roles that could compromise independence. Significant gifts or hospitality are declined or disclosed. Freelancers and contributors are expected to meet the same standard when their work appears under our masthead.

Advertising, sponsorship, and the editorial wall

Advertisers do not assign stories, choose headlines, or shape news lists. Sponsored formats are labeled clearly and designed not to mimic news typography. For data practices related to accounts, newsletters, and analytics, see our privacy policy.

Generative tools and automation

If machine assistance is used in research or drafting workflows, human editors remain accountable for what we publish. We do not publish AI-generated “articles” without human verification, labeling when material automation affects the final text in ways readers should know about.

Reader feedback

Critical letters make the newsroom better. We read serious messages even when we cannot respond individually; credible correction requests are tracked to resolution where possible.