These guidelines explain how Circuit Bulletin reports, sources, and stands behind its journalism. They apply to everyone who publishes under our name, whether in-house staff or outside freelance contributors. Our aim is simple: to tell you what happened, show you how we know, and be honest about the limits of what we know. If we ever fall short of the standards below, we want you to be able to hold us to them.
What we cover
Circuit Bulletin reports on the frontier of technology and its collision with the rest of life. Our regular beats include artificial intelligence, digital privacy and surveillance, cybersecurity, gaming, and the ways technology reshapes society, politics, and the law. We also cover the wider edge of scientific and technical progress, from research breakthroughs to the standards and infrastructure that quietly hold the modern world together.
Much of what we write touches on subjects that can affect people's money, safety, rights, or health. We take that responsibility seriously and apply extra care whenever a story could influence a reader's decisions in those areas.
Accuracy and verification
Accuracy comes before speed. We verify information before we publish it, and being first is never a reason to be wrong. When a story is still developing and we cannot yet confirm a detail, we say so plainly rather than filling the gap with guesswork.
We rely on established, authoritative sources: reputable newspapers and wire services, peer-reviewed journals, and recognised experts and institutions. Wherever possible we go further and work from primary sources rather than second-hand accounts. In practice that means:
- court filings, judgments, and regulatory documents;
- official company statements, filings, and changelogs;
- academic papers and the work of standards bodies;
- source code, technical specifications, and official documentation.
These principles are not ours alone. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics asks journalists to take responsibility for the accuracy of their work, to verify information before releasing it, and to use original sources whenever possible. That is the standard we hold ourselves to.
Sourcing, attribution, and linking
We tell you where our information comes from. When we cite a document, a dataset, or another outlet's reporting, we link to it so you can read it yourself and judge its reliability. If a claim rests on a single source, we say so. If sources disagree, we reflect that rather than flattening it into false certainty.
We identify sources as clearly as the situation allows, because you are entitled to know who is telling us something and why they might be doing so.
Anonymous sources and rumours
Named, on-the-record sources are always our preference. We grant anonymity only when a source has information we cannot reasonably obtain elsewhere and would face a genuine risk, such as retaliation, legal jeopardy, or personal harm, by speaking openly. When we do, we explain to you why anonymity was granted, and we take steps to corroborate what the source tells us rather than relying on their word alone.
We do not launder rumour into fact. Unconfirmed reports, leaks, and market chatter are reported as exactly that, with clear attribution and appropriate caution, and only when there is a real public interest in doing so. If we cannot stand a claim up, we do not publish it, and once we have accepted a source's information in confidence we treat protecting their identity as a binding obligation.
Fairness and right of reply
When a story contains criticism or an allegation of wrongdoing, we make a genuine effort to reach the people or organisations involved and give them a fair chance to respond before we publish. Where a response arrives after publication, we update the piece to reflect it. We aim to be fair without being falsely balanced: giving equal weight to a well-evidenced position and a fringe one does readers no favours.
Expert review
Some subjects are technical enough that good faith and careful reporting are not sufficient on their own. Where a story turns on specialist knowledge, in medicine, security, law, or complex engineering, we have the relevant sections reviewed by qualified subject-matter experts before publication. Their role is to check that our facts and framing are sound. Editorial control, and final responsibility for what we publish, remains with us.
Corrections, updates, and retractions
We will get things wrong from time to time, and when we do we fix them openly. Reuters' standards and values treat the prompt, transparent correction of errors as fundamental to trustworthy journalism, and we agree. We do not quietly delete mistakes or bury them in a later story. Our approach is as follows:
- Updates. When a story develops after publication, or we add new information or context that does not change what we originally reported, we append a dated update note explaining what changed.
- Corrections. When we publish something factually wrong, we correct the text and add a clear, dated correction note at the foot of the article describing the error and the fix. We do not disguise the change.
- Retractions. When a piece is so fundamentally flawed that correcting it is not possible, we retract it, explain why, and preserve a record that it existed rather than making it vanish.
We do not silently edit published articles to alter their meaning. Small fixes such as typos may be made without a note, but any change that affects the substance of a story is disclosed. If you spot an error, please email [email protected] and we will look into it promptly.
Independence
Our editorial judgements are ours alone. No advertiser, sponsor, investor, or other outside party decides what we cover or what conclusions we reach. The detail of how we handle commercial relationships, conflicts of interest, and disclosures is set out in our Ethics Policy, which should be read alongside these guidelines.
