Every submission begins as an unverified newsroom tip. Receiving a report does not establish that an event occurred, that a named person was responsible or that an institution failed. The private intake system exists so an editor can assess the material without exposing it publicly.
First, we separate kinds of knowledge. Editors identify what a source experienced, what the source personally witnessed, what another person reported and what a document appears to show. Hearsay may point toward a line of inquiry, but it is not silently rewritten as firsthand testimony.
Second, we examine evidence in context. A screenshot is checked against surrounding messages where available. A file's type, integrity hash, dates, origin and internal consistency may be reviewed. Original evidence remains private; any publication copy should be redacted and stripped of unnecessary identifying metadata.
Third, we look for independent support. That can include another firsthand account, contemporaneous messages, official complaint records, hostel or academic records, medical or police documentation lawfully provided, and the institution's own response. The amount of corroboration needed rises with the seriousness and potential harm of a claim.
Fourth, identifiable people and institutions criticised in a proposed article receive the substance of the relevant allegations and a meaningful opportunity to respond. Material denials, explanations and exculpatory evidence are considered and represented fairly. No response by a deadline is not treated as proof.
Fifth, language must match the evidence. An allegation is described as an allegation. Corroborated reporting is distinguished from an official disciplinary finding or court finding. Victims, vulnerable witnesses and unnecessary personal details are protected. An article identifying an accused individual requires the recorded editorial safeguards and qualified Indian legal review described in our policy.
Finally, publication is not the end of verification. Readers and affected people can submit a correction request or right of reply. Material errors should be corrected transparently, and substantive new information may be added as an update. A public article should show readers what is known, how it is known and what remains disputed.
Editorial standards — https://endragging.shashwatmolina.chatgpt.site/policies/editorial
Right-of-reply policy — https://endragging.shashwatmolina.chatgpt.site/policies/right-of-reply
Corrections policy and response form — https://endragging.shashwatmolina.chatgpt.site/respond