Editorial independence and transparency must be at the core of everything we do. Our value and reputation as journalists and as a publisher depends on our editorial independence; and transparency about who we work with, who funds us, and who we serve is vital for our mission in the world.
This means that no one outside openDemocracy may control what we publish. Further, it is important that openDemocracy does not appear to act as a megaphone for political campaigns or organisations or other vested interests. And it means that when we are working in partnership or collaboration with others, we let our readers know about it.
openDemocracy has many kinds of relationships with other people and organisations. The most important one is with our readers: we exist to serve them, we respond to their comments and questions, and conversely they provide us with vital support by sharing our work in their own networks and donating money to us. However, we will not accept any donation that comes with conditions about what we publish.
We also receive significant levels of funding in grants from trusts and foundations. We work only with those whose values and objectives are compatible with our own; they, of course, support us for the same reason. However, their financial support does not give them any decisive control over what we publish, as explained below.
Lastly, we have editorial partnerships that are distinct from grant funding. In these, an external organisation – often an academic institution – actively participates in identifying and refining themes for a particular strand of content. They may also suggest authors. And they often cover openDemocracy’s costs related to the project, as well as contributing to our core overheads. We identify these partnerships to readers by publishing a partner’s logo or a distinctive banner on any piece of content or landing page that is created as part of the partnership. But, like grant-making trusts and foundations, they have no ultimate control over what we publish.
Funders and partners
We will never give anyone who funds our work the right to approve copy or any aspect of a video or imagery before publication. Nor will a funder or partner specify how we promote content.
Funders and partners may suggest themes or topics for our editorial content. A partner in a paid-for partnership may supply us with copy or other materials. However, we must always remain free to edit or reject suggestions or content as we see fit.
We may show a partner edited articles before we publish them under the partnership banner – without giving the partner copy approval or anything resembling it. Partners and funders cannot simply overrule the openDemocracy editor working with them.
We must also retain the right to publish content that a funder or partner may not like. In a paid partnership, however, the partner may have the right to veto the public presentation of a piece of content as part of the partnership. In such cases, we remain free to publish the content outside the context of the partnership.
Transparency
If any content we publish mentions a funder or partner of openDemocracy, we should acknowledge this in the article, video or audio.
Political independence
Our aim is to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. Beyond that, openDemocracy does not endorse or promote any political party. Nor do we, as an organisation, assume that any particular policy position, point of view, political theory or ideology is correct.
That said, we are “plural but not neutral”, as our strategic plan for 2020-22 puts it. We call out inequality and injustice, but we value and encourage multiple perspectives on how to tackle them.
There are stricter, legal requirements for content that is funded by a charity. If the charitable purpose is the advancement of education, such content must present “information in a neutral and balanced way that encourages awareness of different points of view”.
That does not mean that charity-funded articles have to treat hateful ideologies as valid, or devote equal space to differing points of view. However, there should be balance and fair treatment of different points of view across the output of a charitably funded project.
Other people's agendas
Editorial independence means that we must not simply lend our platform and audience to organisations, events, campaigns or products that we as individuals happen to approve of.
We should never publish an unedited press release or manifesto.
If editors think that our readers would be interested to hear about an organisation, event, campaign or product, they should write or commission content about it – an article, video or podcast that considers the subject’s weaknesses as well as its strengths.
This is not to say that openDemocracy will never cooperate with other organisations on campaigns, or indeed run campaigns ourselves, as we do from time to time. But the editor-in-chief must approve any such arrangement before we publish anything.
If editors want to publish an open letter, they should consider whether it might be more engaging rewritten as an opinion piece – which should not strongly promote the authors or their organisation or campaign or product. If they feel that the open letter format is best, the editor-in-chief or head of news should approve it first.
The headline must begin 'Open letter:' so that readers understand it is not the collective voice of openDemocracy itself. And editors should simultaneously publish a news article describing the key points of the letter, the context in which it was written and the response it has had or is likely to have (example here).
Avoiding advertorials
The rules for advertising in the UK also require editorial independence. If anyone outside openDemocracy was able to specify what we publish, or require changes to content, the content would be ‘advertorial’ and so would have to be clearly labelled as advertising and visually presented in a way that distinguished it from editorial content. We do not publish advertorial.
Updated 25 January 2024