Effective date: August 13, 2026.
1. Mission and Scope
Colbertism is an independent publication covering economics and financial markets. Our editorial goal is precision without pretension: we explain monetary policy, market structure, macroeconomic data, and financial history in language an intelligent non-specialist can follow, while keeping the underlying mechanics intact. We would rather publish one careful essay than five fast ones, and we accept that this choice costs us speed on breaking news. We do not attempt to be first; we attempt to be right and understandable.
These standards apply to every article, chart, and data table we publish. They govern how material is produced before publication and how it is maintained afterward. They do not constitute investment advice or create any duty toward readers beyond what is described here; for the limits of what our content is and is not, see the Disclaimer.
2. Sourcing Standards
Our sourcing hierarchy, in descending order of preference, is:
- Primary sources: original documents, regulatory filings, central bank statements, transcripts, and legislation, consulted directly rather than through secondhand summaries.
- Official statistics: data from national statistical agencies, central banks, and multilateral institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, BIS, and OECD.
- Peer-reviewed research: published academic work, with working papers clearly identified as not yet peer reviewed when we rely on them.
- Reputable secondary reporting: established financial press, used mainly for context and always attributed.
Because economic data is revised constantly, we frame figures with care. Numbers that are estimates, preliminary releases, or subject to revision are introduced with qualifiers such as “roughly” or “reported at the time,” and we prefer stating the vintage of a data point (“Q2 figures as first released”) over presenting revised history as if it had always been known. When we cite a figure that was later revised, we say so if the revision matters to the argument.
Charts and diagrams that simplify reality for teaching purposes are labeled “stylized” or “illustrative” in the caption or on the image itself. A stylized chart conveys a mechanism or relationship; it is not a plot of measured data and should never be read as one. Charts built from real data identify the underlying source.
3. Accuracy Protocol Before Publication
Before an article is published, it passes through a documented pre-publication review:
- Fact pattern check: every factual claim (dates, names, events, institutional roles, quoted figures) is traced back to a source, and the source is checked for currency.
- Formula verification: any equation, identity, or worked calculation is re-derived or re-computed independently of the draft. If an article walks through arithmetic, the arithmetic is run again from scratch.
- Figure and data consistency: numbers in the text are reconciled against the charts and tables in the same piece, so a reader never encounters a chart that contradicts the paragraph beside it.
- Framing review: qualifiers, hedges, and vintage labels described in Section 2 are checked for presence where the data demands them.
Publication is blocked until each step is complete. If a claim cannot be verified in time, it is cut or rewritten as an explicitly flagged open question rather than published on trust.
4. Separation of Analysis and Opinion
We distinguish three registers and try to keep them visibly distinct within each piece. Reporting states what happened, sourced as described above. Analysis draws inferences from evidence; it can be wrong, but it must show its work, and a reader should be able to identify the premises and challenge them. Opinion expresses judgment or preference; it is signaled with first-person framing or explicit markers such as “in our view.” We do not present opinion in the grammatical costume of fact, and we do not bury contestable judgments inside sentences that read as neutral description. Where a piece is predominantly opinion, its framing makes that clear from the opening paragraphs.
5. Independence and Funding
Editorial independence at Colbertism is structural, not aspirational:
- We publish no sponsored content and no paid placements. No article, ranking, mention, or omission can be bought at any price.
- Advertisers receive no preview of upcoming content and have no influence over topics, framing, timing, or conclusions. No advertising runs today; when it does, it will be served through third-party networks such as Google AdSense, with the selection of individual ads automated and outside our editorial process.
- Our funding model, including the pre-committed rules that would govern affiliate links if we ever adopt them, is disclosed in full on the Advertising Disclosure page. Those rules exist now, before any affiliate revenue does, precisely so that money can never quietly rewrite them.
If a conflict of interest ever touches a specific article (for example, a personal financial position of an author in an asset under discussion), it is disclosed within that article.
6. Tools and Software in Production
We use software throughout production and see no reason to hide it. Drafting tools, including AI-assisted writing and research tools, may be used to outline, summarize sources, or refine prose. Charting software and scripting languages are used to build visualizations from source data. Two rules govern all of it:
- Human responsibility is total. Every published claim, figure, and chart has been reviewed and approved by a human editor under the protocol in Section 3. “The tool generated it” is never an excuse; if it appears under our name, we own it.
- Tools never substitute for sources. No factual claim is published on the strength of a tool’s output alone. Claims are verified against the primary and official sources described in Section 2 before publication.
7. Bylines and Author Accountability
Every article carries a byline identifying who is editorially responsible for it. Pieces published under the publication’s name are the responsibility of the editor. Authors are accountable for their published work: they participate in verifying reported errors in their pieces, and correction notes on an article reflect on its byline. We do not use bylines borrowed from people who did not do the work, and we do not publish anonymous editorial content. Background on the publication and its operator is available on the About page.
8. Corrections Policy
We treat corrections as a core editorial product, not an embarrassment to be minimized. The procedure below applies to everything we publish.
Reporting an Error
Send suspected errors through the contact form, ideally naming the article, quoting the passage in question, and pointing to a source that contradicts it. Correction reports jump the queue: they are triaged ahead of all other contact form messages. We aim to acknowledge a correction report within two business days. Reports handled through the form are processed as described in our Privacy Policy.
Verification Procedure
- We log the report and re-read the passage in its original context.
- We check the claim against the sources originally used, then against primary sources and official statistics independently of the original research, so the verification does not simply repeat the mistake.
- Where a formula or calculation is disputed, we re-derive it from scratch.
- We classify the outcome: confirmed error, clarification needed, or claim stands. In each case the reporter receives an answer explaining the decision, not just a verdict.
Correction Classes
| Class | Examples | Handling | Target timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive error | Wrong figure, mislabeled or miscomputed chart, misattributed statement, flawed formula, factual claim contradicted by the record | Text corrected; a dated correction note is appended to the article describing what was wrong and what changed | Within two business days of verification |
| Clarification | Passage technically accurate but likely to mislead a reasonable reader | Wording revised; a dated clarification note is appended when the meaning of the piece changed | Within five business days of verification |
| Trivial typo | Spelling, punctuation, broken links, formatting glitches | Fixed silently with no appended note | Ongoing |
No Stealth Edits or Deletions
We do not stealth-edit substance and we do not delete articles to escape their errors. If a piece is so flawed that correction cannot save it, it is retracted in place: the text is replaced or struck through with a dated retraction note explaining why, and the URL keeps resolving so the record survives. Removals required by law or by valid intellectual property claims are handled under the Copyright and DMCA policy and noted where legally possible.
Credit for Correctors
Readers who catch substantive errors deserve recognition. With the reporter’s explicit consent, correction notes thank the person by the name they choose. Without consent, the note simply credits “a reader.” We never publish a corrector’s identity without asking first.
9. Updates to Evergreen Essays
Explainers and reference essays are maintained after publication. When an evergreen piece is materially revised, it receives a dated “Updated on” stamp near the top, distinct from correction notes, and significant changes are summarized in a short note. Revisions are triggered by: official data revisions that alter a stated figure, policy or regulatory changes that make guidance stale, structural market changes that undermine an explanation, or accumulated reader feedback showing that a passage confuses more than it clarifies. Cosmetic edits (formatting, link maintenance) do not trigger a stamp. The original publication date always remains visible; we do not re-date old work to make it look new.
10. Comment Moderation
Where comments are open, we moderate for civility and relevance, not for agreement. We remove spam, commercial solicitation, personal attacks, harassment, doxxing, slurs, and off-topic flooding. We do not remove comments for criticizing our analysis, our accuracy, or us; hostile but substantive comments stay up. Moderation decisions are made by a human, and repeat abusive behavior may lead to a posting ban as described in the Terms of Use. Comments represent their authors, not Colbertism, and correcting the record in comments does not substitute for the formal corrections channel in Section 8.
11. Reader Feedback Loop
Beyond corrections, we actively want reader input on clarity: which explanations landed, which lost you, and what we should cover next. Feedback arrives through the contact form and, where enabled, through comments. We review feedback regularly, and recurring themes shape both revisions to evergreen essays (Section 9) and the topics we commission. We cannot reply individually to every message, but every message is read.
12. Disagreement With Our Analysis
Analysis invites disagreement, and we distinguish it sharply from error. If you challenge our reasoning with evidence, data, or a coherent counter-argument, we engage: where you persuade us, we say so publicly and update the piece under Section 9; where we remain unpersuaded, we explain why. Abuse, bad-faith gotchas, and demands unaccompanied by evidence receive no engagement. Disagreement alone never triggers a correction note; corrections are reserved for demonstrable errors of fact, figure, or computation as defined in Section 8.
13. Changes to These Editorial Standards and Questions
We review these standards periodically and revise them when our practices, tools, or funding arrangements change. Material changes are published on this page with an updated effective date at the top; we do not weaken correction or independence commitments retroactively for content already published. Prior versions are available on request. Questions about these standards, or reports of conduct that falls short of them, should be sent through the contact form. Related policies, including the Privacy Policy, Advertising Disclosure, and Disclaimer, are collected at colbertism.com/legal/.