Our Standard for Sourcing
Every factual claim in a Fullimedia article must trace to a primary source: a published study, a regulatory filing, a court document, a direct statement from a person with firsthand knowledge, or a verified official record. Secondary aggregation — taking a figure from another outlet’s story without verifying the underlying source — is not acceptable practice here.
When reporters cite data, the specific publication, institution, or dataset is named in the text or linked directly. Vague sourcing formulas such as “experts say” or “studies show” without attribution do not meet our standard. If a claim cannot be sourced to something a reader can check, the claim is either removed or explicitly framed as unverified.
Anonymous Sources
Fullimedia uses anonymous sourcing rarely and only under specific conditions. A source may speak without being named when: (1) the information is material to the story and unavailable from any on-record source; (2) the source faces a credible professional or personal risk from being identified; and (3) the editor handling the story has independently verified the source’s identity and their basis for knowledge.
When anonymous sourcing is used, we describe the source’s role in terms that allow readers to assess their vantage point — for example, “a person with direct knowledge of the contract” rather than “a source.” We do not use anonymous sources to publish allegations against named individuals without giving those individuals a documented opportunity to respond.
News and Opinion Are Separated
News reporting and opinion or commentary are distinct formats at Fullimedia and are labeled as such. A news article does not contain the reporter’s conclusions or recommendations. Opinion pieces are clearly labeled “Opinion” and carry the author’s byline and disclosed perspective. Editors do not embed advocacy into news coverage.
Verification Before Publication
Stories are not published until the core facts have been verified by at least the desk editor responsible for that beat. For stories with significant factual complexity — medical claims reviewed by Dr. Andrea Velez, financial figures reviewed by Sebastian Ross — a second verification pass is standard before the piece goes into the daily edition. Breaking news that must publish before full verification is labeled clearly as developing and updated as facts are confirmed.
Headline Honesty
Headlines must accurately reflect the content of the story. We do not write headlines that overstate conclusions, manufacture conflict that does not exist in the reporting, or bait clicks with implications the body of the article does not support. If a finding is provisional, the headline says so. If a subject disputed our reporting, the headline does not present only one side as settled fact.
Right of Reply
Any person, organization, or institution that is the subject of criticism or an allegation in a Fullimedia story is contacted before publication and given a documented opportunity to respond. The response — or a record of non-response — is reflected in the story. This applies to corrections as well: if a correction changes the substance of what was said about a person, that person is notified.
Use of AI Tools
Fullimedia reporters and editors may use AI-assisted tools for research orientation, transcription assistance, and copy editing suggestions. AI tools are never used to generate factual claims, produce quotes, fabricate bylines, or substitute for original reporting. A named human journalist is accountable for every word published under a Fullimedia byline.
AI-generated text is not published as journalism. Reporters who use AI assistance in the preparation of a draft are expected to verify all facts independently and to write the final text themselves. The use of AI does not transfer any portion of editorial responsibility away from the bylined author.
Updates and Corrections
Factual errors are corrected promptly, publicly, and with a dated note that describes what was wrong and what the correct information is. The correction note appears at the top of the affected article. Corrections are also logged in the public corrections record at fullimedia.com.co/corrections/.
Articles that become materially outdated after major developments are updated with a clear “Updated” timestamp and a note explaining what changed. Articles that cannot be responsibly updated — because the premise has been invalidated — are retired and replaced with a brief public note.
Corrections do not erase what was wrong. The original error is described so that readers who saw the earlier version understand what changed and why.
Reader Feedback and Complaints
Readers who believe a story contains a factual error, a misleading framing, or a violation of these guidelines are encouraged to write to [email protected]. Complaints receive a written response. If a complaint results in a correction, the correction process above applies. Disagreements that do not involve factual error are addressed in good faith but may not result in a correction.
For the broader ethical framework governing these standards, see the Ethics Policy. For how stories are sourced and verified in practice, see Methodology. For how errors are recorded, see Corrections. For our fact-checking process, see Fact-Checking Policy.