Editorial Standards

We publish stories about scientific breakthroughs, technological progress, conservation wins, public-health improvements, kindness, community resilience, and personal achievement. Our editorial bias is toward verified, useful good news — not feel-good fluff.

We don't publish opinion pieces, partisan political commentary, or stories that attack individuals or organizations. If a story can't be told without taking a political side, we generally pass on it.

Our newsroom uses AI tools (Anthropic Claude, OpenAI, and others) to help with:

• Scanning press releases, journals, and primary sources for newsworthy material
• Summarizing long studies and reports into key points
• Drafting article outlines and prose
• Suggesting headlines for editorial review
• Identifying related stories and historical context

A human editor reviews every published article before it goes live. We check for factual accuracy, source quality, tone, fairness, and clarity. If a story can't be verified against a primary source, it doesn't run.

We do not run fully automated, unreviewed articles. We don't publish stories we cannot trace back to a real source.

Every article is built from at least one primary source: a research paper, an institutional announcement, a verified news report from a major outlet, official government data, or a direct interview. Most stories cite multiple sources.

When we cover scientific findings, we link to the underlying paper. When we cover a company announcement, we link to the company's own page. When we cover a person's achievement, we cite the original reporting that documented it.

If you ever read a story on The Good Press and can't find the source, that's a mistake on our end. Let us know and we'll fix it.

Articles carry a single byline: The Good Press Newsroom. We chose this format because we think it's more honest than inventing reporter names for AI-assisted work. The newsroom byline reflects the team effort behind every story — human editors plus AI tools, working together.

When we have an outside contributor, guest writer, or named editor weighing in on a piece, that person gets their own byline alongside the newsroom credit.

Some article comment threads on The Good Press were seeded with discussion prompts written by AI personas to give readers a starting point for conversation. We are in the process of phasing this out and labeling all such comments transparently. If you see a comment on the site that you think is AI-generated but not labeled, let us know and we'll fix it.

Going forward, we're focused on real reader engagement instead of simulated discussion.

If we get a fact wrong, tell us. Email editor@thegoodpress.news with the article URL and what should be corrected. We aim to review and respond within 48 hours.

When we update an article after publication, we add a note at the bottom explaining what changed and why. Major corrections also include the original incorrect text struck through so readers can see what was changed.

• Invent quotes or attribute statements that weren't made. All quoted material is verifiable.
• Fabricate statistics. Numbers come from cited sources.
• Run paid content as editorial. If a story is sponsored, it's labeled as such.
• Publish without a human review step. No exceptions.