This policy sets out the ethical commitments behind everything Circuit Bulletin publishes. It covers our independence from commercial pressure, how we handle conflicts of interest, our absolute rules against fabrication and plagiarism, and the care we take when reporting on private individuals. It sits alongside our Editorial Guidelines and applies to all staff and freelance contributors. The short version: we work for our readers, and nobody else gets to decide what we conclude.
Editorial independence
Our editorial decisions are made by our editorial team and no one else. No advertiser, sponsor, affiliate partner, investor, vendor, or PR agency gets to shape, soften, or dictate our reporting or the conclusions we draw. Coverage is never offered, withheld, or slanted in exchange for advertising, access, or any other commercial consideration.
This mirrors the American Society of Business Publication Editors' Code of Journalism Ethics, which warns that favourable coverage must never hinge on the prospect of ad sales or other factors unrelated to editorial integrity, and that advertisers should never receive preferential editorial treatment because of their value to the business. We keep a clear line between our editorial work and any commercial content. Anything that is paid for or sponsored is labelled clearly as such, and it is never dressed up to look like independent reporting.
Conflicts of interest
We disclose conflicts of interest rather than hide them. If a writer or editor has a financial stake, a personal relationship, or any other tie that a reasonable reader might think could colour a story, we either disclose it prominently in the piece or reassign the work. This includes holdings in companies we cover, prior employment, and relationships with people or organisations in a story.
Affiliate links and commercial disclosure
Where an article contains affiliate links, meaning links that may earn us a commission if you buy something, we say so plainly. Affiliate arrangements never determine whether a product is covered or how it is assessed. Our verdict on something is not for sale, and a commercial relationship has no bearing on whether we praise or criticise a product.
No fabrication, no plagiarism
We do not make things up, and we do not pass off others' work as our own. This is a firm line with no exceptions. Specifically, we prohibit:
- fabricating facts, quotes, sources, or events;
- inventing or compositing people or sources;
- manipulating screenshots, images, data, or documents to mislead;
- copying text, code, or research from others without credit.
We extend this ban explicitly to AI tools. We do not use generative AI to fabricate quotes, invent sources, produce fake evidence, or generate any material that is then presented as real. Our full position on artificial intelligence is set out in our AI Policy.
Protecting confidential sources
When we promise a source confidentiality, we keep that promise. Writers have a moral obligation to protect confidential sources of information, and we will not disclose the identity of a source who has been granted anonymity, including to authorities. We grant anonymity sparingly and only on the terms described in our Editorial Guidelines, but once given, our commitment to it is absolute.
Privacy and reporting on people
Being newsworthy is not the same as being fair game. We weigh the public interest in a story against the harm that publishing personal information could cause, and we err on the side of restraint. In practice, this means:
- We do not publish private personal information, such as home addresses, contact details, or identifying data, where it serves no genuine public interest. We do not engage in doxxing or publish material that helps others do so.
- We take particular care with children, and we do not identify minors or publish their personal details without a compelling reason and appropriate consent.
- We treat victims of crime, and their families, with dignity, and we avoid gratuitous detail or identification that would compound their harm.
- We think twice before amplifying viral pile-ons. An ordinary person who becomes the target of a mob is not a public figure, and we will not pour fuel on a fire simply because it is trending.
Social media posts are not automatically fair to republish just because they are public. We consider who posted something, whether they are a public figure, whether they intended it for a wide audience, and what harm identification might cause before quoting or embedding personal posts, especially those from private individuals.
Contacting us and corrections
If you spot an error or omission in our work, please tell us at [email protected]. We investigate complaints promptly, whether they come from a reader, a source, or a subject of coverage. When we have made a mistake, we correct it openly: the article text is fixed and a dated correction note is added to the piece so the change is visible rather than hidden. The full mechanics of updates, corrections, and retractions are described in our Editorial Guidelines.
Accountability
Upholding this policy is a shared responsibility across everyone who publishes with us, and each writer remains personally accountable for the integrity of their own work. Where these standards are broken, we act on it.
