Owning Our Coverage: Here’s How We Decide What’s Fit to Print

Share This Post

Making sense of the news cycle can be exceptionally challenging. We live in an age of information overload, and parsing out what’s factual and relevant from what’s sensational and reckless is tricky for even the most seasoned internet denizen — and journalists are no exception.

As a publisher, it is our job to produce objective and impartial coverage of notable and newsworthy events. We owe it to ourselves and our readers to take this responsibility seriously and focus our attention on subjects that matter — on the stories that uplift, inspire, or highlight valid concerns. And we also owe it to ourselves and our readers to ensure we’re not giving a platform to or uplifting figures and voices that have caused tangible harm.

With this in mind, and in light of recent events, we felt it appropriate to outline the editorial policies that help guide our decision-making regarding both our overall coverage and subjects who face legitimate accusations of violence, prejudice, bigotry, or related actions that caused harm.

General coverage policy

At nft now, our goal isn’t just to cover the latest developments in NFTs. Our mission is to redefine how creators and their communities share in the value they create. We believe that NFTs will power a new economic model, generating prosperity for people across all domains and disciplines. And we’re working today to build that future by using insightful storytelling to highlight exactly where we are and how far we still have to go. We cover Web3 wins, losses, and what needs to change to realize the full potential of NFTs. So here are some basic guidelines to help you understand how this plays out in our coverage:

  • We don’t shy away from systemic issues, but neither do we catastrophize. We confront problems honestly and always point toward potential solutions.
  • We never make NFTs sound like a panacea. We always do our best to be upfront about downsides or problems that must be solved.
  • We only cover brands, projects, and people who are meaningfully contributing to the space. We avoid coverage if it seems that those involved are in it to extract value — even if they are ultra-famous.
  • We actively seek effective ways of uplifting emerging artists and creators.

Conspiracy theories and gossip/rumors

We don’t cover conspiracy theories or gossip and rumors in any way, shape, or form. The following considerations help us determine if something falls into this category.

  • Are relevant experts active in discussing the topic, and do they note that it is a valid concern?
  • Are the claims only backed by an exceptionally niche subset of the community?
  • Have relevant experts dismissed the claim(s)?
  • Are the claims being made overly tenuous or rely on obscure references and puzzles?
  • Do the claims lack what is widely understood to be “objective evidence”?

Promoting (the work of) subjects who face accusations

We don’t promote or uplift subjects (or their work) if there are credible accusations against them. We use the following questions to help determine whether a subject faces credible accusations and should or should not be discussed in coverage:

  • Are the accusations credible? Is there objective evidence that supports the accusations?
  • Did the subject act with the intent to cause harm? Do relevant experts or members of impacted communities feel that the subject acted with the intent to cause harm?
  • Has the subject made legitimate efforts to make amends? Do relevant experts or members of impacted communities feel that the subject has made amends?
  • Were social and cultural mores different at the time the events took place? Would the subject’s actions have been widely considered acceptable at the time the events took place?

Help us get it right

Institutions are made up of humans. As a result, we can (and probably will) get things wrong sometimes. But beyond that, it would be unhelpful for any one person or publication to set themselves up as the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. These matters take place in a larger societal dialogue — one that we all benefit from taking part in. We recognize our role in that conversation, and we hope that you will join us in having it.

If you’re curious about the ethical standards we set ourselves, including details about our promises to our readers, disclaimers regarding sponsored content, corrections and updates, and conflicts of interest, please check out our editorial ethics policy. We also encourage you to reach out to us here with any thoughts, comments, or concerns you might have about the job we’re doing. We love to hear feedback from the community, so get in touch.

From all of us here at nft now, thanks for reading.

The post Owning Our Coverage: Here’s How We Decide What’s Fit to Print appeared first on nft now.

Source
Owning Our Coverage: Here’s How We Decide What’s Fit to Print is written by Nft now Staff for nftnow.com

Related Posts

SEI: A Comprehensive Guide to a Unique DeFi Blockchain

SEI is an emerging player in the decentralized finance...

Bitcoin bounces at 1-month lows — Watch these BTC price levels next

Bitcoin has fallen to one-month lows and traders are...

On the Margin Newsletter: Inside Trump’s ‘monumental’ meeting with BTC miners

Today, enjoy the On the Margin newsletter on Blockworks.co....

Trezor Launches New Hardware Wallet ‘Safe 5’ with Bitcoin-only Variant

A Trio of New Trezor ProductsMatěj Žák, CEO of...

AAVE: An In-Depth Look at a Leading Decentralized Finance Protocol

Aave (AAVE) is a prominent decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol...

Wat Project Expands to Two Million Wallets on Telegram

Initially, Gamee, a hypercasual gaming ecosystem under Animoca Brands,...
ethereum
Ethereum (ETH) $ 3,559.68
bitcoin
Bitcoin (BTC) $ 66,587.84
tether
Tether (USDT) $ 0.999924
xrp
XRP (XRP) $ 0.495189
binance-usd
BUSD (BUSD) $ 0.992904
cardano
Cardano (ADA) $ 0.415847
dogecoin
Dogecoin (DOGE) $ 0.135894
litecoin
Litecoin (LTC) $ 79.32
solana
Solana (SOL) $ 145.32