When an outside review is useful
A review can be useful when the reporting is consequential, the facts are contested, the sourcing is complicated, or a small team does not have an experienced standards editor available internally. It can begin while reporting is still underway or after a draft, script, rough cut, or episode has taken shape.
The purpose is not to replace editorial judgment. It is to give the decision-makers a disciplined second look at the reporting record and the choices that will be visible to the audience.
What the review examines
The review follows the support for each material claim: what the sources actually know, how documents or recordings have been authenticated, whether contrary information has been addressed, and whether the language accurately reflects the level of certainty in the reporting.
It also considers fairness steps, including meaningful notice of allegations, opportunities to respond, treatment of relevant responses, and whether the overall framing gives the audience the context needed to assess the work.
What the engagement produces
Depending on the project and timing, the work may include written notes, a prioritized issues list, discussion with reporters and editors, or a focused review of particular passages and decisions. The result is practical editorial guidance: what is supported, what needs more work, and what should be stated with greater precision.
A standards review is not legal clearance and does not replace advice from counsel. Editorial and legal review can address different questions and often work best when their roles are kept clear.
Discuss an engagement
Start with a brief, non-confidential note.
Describe the project or matter, its current stage, any important deadline, and the editorial standards questions on which input would be most useful.
Start a conversation