It means we’ve subjected the story you’re reading to rigorous scrutiny, no holds barred. It means we’ve taken our time and care and were ultimately convinced. It means we think you will be, too.
We aim to earn the trust of our clients and our readers with every case we consider. We are committed to publishing the truth, but where the facts are in dispute, we say so and publish only those stories we deem to be highly credible and worthy of the reader’s serious consideration.
We balance our client obligations with our public responsibility. We strive for excellence in every aspect of our work, from engaging with clients to the critical reasoning, independent research and writing we perform. We adhere to the highest procedural and ethical standards in all that we do.
We believe that online content contributes significantly to one’s reputation and that unfair reporting is a genuine injustice. We are committed to rectifying reputational harm and not creating it.
We promote legitimate self-authorship and believe it is important and valuable. We will never obscure the fact that our clients pay us to render an opinion about their personal narratives or that the articles we publish have been written by the subjects of the stories themselves.
Three Michelin stars cannot guarantee a delicious meal, but they promise at least the exceedingly high likelihood that something exceptional is in store.
Of course, we cannot guarantee we’ll never get it wrong. But our inherently objective approach promises the high likelihood of a story’s veracity. When the claims made by our clients lend themselves to verification, we verify them. When they do not, we employ critical reasoning methodologies to determine if the story stands to reason.
Clients cannot pay us to publish their In Fairness stories, only to review them. With no financial incentive to render a positive opinion, we allow clients to publish on our platform only those stories we deem trustworthy.
Members of our Editorial Board come to The Principal Post with significant experience in rendering professional judgments, whether about people, problems or processes, moving from claims, data or other evidence to conclusions proven over time to be reliable.
In addition, drawing on best practices from traditional journalism and from other investigatory disciplines, our Editorial Board considers each case with the benefit of Company training in critical reasoning, interviewing, narrative vetting and verification, professional ethics and standards and relevant legal issues.
With the benefit of substantial senior level journalism experience or scholarship, members of our Practice and Review committee provide the second set of eyes on complex or controversial narratives, challenging or ratifying the initial recommendations of our lead editors. They also inform the policies, standards and protocol we employ with every case we consider.
1. Richard Babcock; 2. Marisa Porto; 3. Richard Perez-Feria; 4. John Fennell; 5. Mark Sikstrom; 6. Tim Swarens; 7. Sonali Kudva, Ph.D.; 8. Hal RubensteinSee entire team
Reach for us here to inquire about our review process and editorial practices.