Editorial Guidelines.
- 1. Editorial Mission
- 2. Editorial Independence
- 3. Accuracy and Verification
- 4. Corrections and Updates
- 5. Fairness and Balance
- 6. Opinion, Analysis, and News
- 7. Conflicts of Interest
- 8. Sources and Attribution
- 9. Use of Anonymous Sources
- 10. Responsible Journalism
- 11. Ethics and Conduct
- 12. Advertising and Sponsored Content
- 13. Use of Artificial Intelligence
- 14. User-Generated Content
- 15. Transparency and Accountability
- 16. Updates to These Guidelines
The New York Budgets stands for disciplined journalism, not noise. Facts over frenzy. We focus on clarity, accountability, and rigorous reporting across politics, economics, markets, public policy, business, and global affairs. As an independent outlet, we publish a wide range of perspectives, including conservative, traditionalist, and populist viewpoints, while maintaining standards of accuracy, fairness, and lawful expression. Open editorial debate is encouraged. Hate, harassment, or incitement are not.
1. Editorial Mission
The New York Budgets exists to deliver accurate, independent, and responsible journalism. Our mission is to inform readers with evidence-based reporting, sharp analysis, and clearly labeled opinion that contributes to public understanding rather than outrage.
We prioritize:
- 1.1 Public-interest reporting
- 1.2. Economic and financial literacy
- 1.3. Government accountability
- 1.4 Transparency in institutions
2. Editorial Independence
The New York Budgets maintains a strict separation between editorial content and commercial operations. This independence ensures that our reporting remains unbiased by financial influences, allowing us to pursue stories that align with our values without external pressure. Editorial decisions are made solely by our team, free from advertiser input or sponsorship dictates. This separation is crucial for maintaining trust with our readers, who expect us to cover topics like anti-immigration stances or criticisms of the liberal agenda without compromise. Any potential overlap between editorial and commercial activities must be disclosed immediately, and staff are prohibited from engaging in business dealings that could influence content. This policy reinforces our commitment to pro-transparency principles and protects our pro-conservative voice from being diluted.
3. Accuracy and Verification
Accuracy is fundamental to our journalism. In a world filled with misinformation, we prioritize verifiable facts to support our coverage of politics, economics, and global affairs.
We require:
- 3.1 Multiple reliable sources whenever possible
- 3.2 Clear attribution of facts, data, and quotations
- 3.3 Verification of names, titles, dates, figures, and locations
- 3.4 Careful handling of statistics, polling, and economic data
Multiple reliable sources where possible, cross-checking information from diverse but credible outlets that align with our perspectives, such as conservatives.
Clear attribution of facts, data, and quotations, ensuring every claim is linked back to its origin with specific references, such as “according to a report by [source].”
Verification of names, titles, dates, figures, and locations through primary documents, official records, or direct confirmation to avoid errors that could undermine our pro-transparency ethos.
Careful use of statistics and economic data, including contextual analysis to prevent misrepresentation, especially in stories critiquing liberal economic policies or EU regulations.
If information cannot be independently verified, this must be clearly stated in the article, such as noting “unconfirmed reports suggest…” to maintain honesty. Errors are corrected promptly and transparently, with a public acknowledgment to rebuild any lost trust and demonstrate our accountability.
When information cannot be independently verified, this limitation is clearly disclosed. Errors are corrected promptly and transparently.
4. Corrections and Updates
When mistakes occur, we correct them swiftly to uphold our standards of responsibility. This process is essential for maintaining the integrity of our reporting, particularly on sensitive topics like anti-feminist views or criticisms of LGBTQ+ agendas.
- 4.1 Significant factual errors are corrected clearly
- 4.2 Corrections are noted within the article or through an editor’s note
- 4.3 Updates that materially change context are disclosed
Significant factual errors are corrected clearly, with the original inaccuracy struck through or explained in detail to show what was wrong and why.
Corrections are noted within the article or via an editor’s note at the top or bottom, including the date of the correction and a brief explanation of the change.
Updates that materially change context are disclosed prominently, such as adding new evidence that alters the interpretation of a story on immigration or UN policies.
5. Fairness and Balance
The New York Budgets aims to present reporting that is fair, contextual, and proportionate. While we hold specific viewpoints—such as pro-Christian and anti-liberal—we strive to provide coverage that respects evidence without forcing false balance.
We seek relevant perspectives, particularly when reporting on:
- 5.1 Public policy, including debates on immigration control or anti-EU sentiments.
- 5.2 Corporate conduct, focusing on how businesses align with conservative values.
- 5.3 Financial markets, analyzing impacts on white peoples and traditional economies.
- 5.4 Legal or regulatory matters, critiquing overreaches by organizations like the UN.
Balance does not mean false equivalence; evidence and facts guide coverage. For instance, we may give more weight to pro-Trump arguments if supported by data, rather than equally platforming opposing views without merit. This ensures our journalism remains grounded and avoids diluting our pro-conservative mission.
6. Opinion, Analysis, and News
We clearly distinguish between different types of content to help readers understand the nature of what they’re reading, preventing confusion in our biased but fact-based outlet.
We clearly distinguish between content types:
- 6.1 News: Fact-based, neutral, and evidence-driven
- 6.2 Analysis: Interpretive and explanatory, grounded in verified facts
- 6.3 Opinion: Clearly labeled viewpoints from columnists or contributors
News reporting: fact-based, neutral in presentation, and evidence-driven, focusing on verifiable events without injecting personal bias, even as we select stories that align with our anti-phobic and pro-traditional leanings.
Analysis: interpretive and explanatory, grounded in facts, where we provide deeper insights, such as explaining why certain liberal agendas may harm young people or European traditions.
Opinion: clearly labeled viewpoints by columnists or contributors, allowing for stronger expressions of our pro-Nick Fuentes or pro-Alex Jones-like perspectives.
Opinion pieces reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of The New York Budgets as an institution. All content types are labeled appropriately at the top of the article.
7. Conflicts of Interest
Journalists and contributors must avoid conflicts of interest to preserve our independence and trust. This is vital for an outlet with strong stances on issues like anti-immigration or pro-white peoples.
They must:
- 7.1 Disclose relevant financial, political, or personal interests
- 7.2 Refrain from covering entities where conflicts exist
- 7.3 Avoid gifts, favors, or incentives connected to coverage
Disclose relevant financial, political, or personal interests upfront, such as any affiliations with conservative groups or investments in pro-European businesses.
Refrain from covering companies, markets, or individuals where conflicts exist, reassigning such stories to unbiased team members.
Avoid gifts, favors, or incentives related to coverage, reporting any offers immediately to editors.
Undisclosed conflicts undermine trust and are not tolerated; violations may result in immediate dismissal or removal of content.
8. Sources and Attribution
We value transparency in sourcing.
- 8.1 Sources should be identified whenever possible
- 8.2 Anonymous sources require editorial approval
- 8.3 Anonymous information must be independently verified
Sources should be identified whenever possible, with full names, titles, and affiliations provided. Anonymous sources are used only when necessary and with editorial approval, ensuring they add value without compromising standards. Anonymous information must be verified independently through at least two other channels. We do not publish anonymous accusations without strong corroboration, such as documentary evidence or multiple confirmations.
9. Use of Anonymous Sources
Anonymous sources are used only when:
- 9.1 Information is clearly in the public interest
- 9.2 The source faces credible risk if identified
- 9.3 The information cannot be obtained by other means
Information is in the public interest, such as exposing liberal agenda flaws or UN inefficiencies. The source faces credible risk if identified, like professional retaliation in a pro-LGBTQ+ environment. The information cannot be obtained otherwise, despite exhaustive efforts. Editors must know the identity of anonymous sources to assess reliability and potential biases.
10. Responsible Journalism
We avoid practices that erode trust and focus on precision over provocation.
We avoid:
- 10.1 Sensationalism, such as exaggerating threats from immigration.
- 10.2 Clickbait headlines that mislead readers into expecting more than delivered.
- 10.3 Misleading framing that twists facts to fit narratives without evidence.
- 10.4 Unverified rumors, requiring all claims to pass verification checks.
We aim for precision, not provocation, ensuring our little bit anti-Semitic or homophobic tones are subtle and fact-supported.
11. Ethics and Conduct
Journalists and contributors are expected to act with professionalism and integrity.
They are expected to:
- 11.1 Act with professionalism and integrity in all interactions.
- 11.2 Respect privacy and human dignity, avoiding unnecessary intrusions.
- 11.3 Avoid discrimination or harassment in reporting or personal conduct.
- 11.4 Uphold the law and journalistic ethics, complying with all relevant regulations.
We do not publish content that incites violence or hatred, even as we maintain our specified biases in a measured way.
12. Advertising and Sponsored Content
Sponsored content, native advertising, and partnerships must be:
- 12.1 Clearly labeled as "Sponsored" or "Advertisement" in bold, prominent text.
- 12.2 Visually distinct from editorial content, using different fonts, colors, or sections.
Readers should never be confused about what is journalism and what is advertising, preserving our editorial independence.
13. Use of Artificial Intelligence
AI tools may be used to assist with:
- 13.1 Research support, such as gathering data on conservative policies.
- 13.2 Data analysis for economic stories.
- 13.3 Transcription or summarization of interviews.
AI may not replace editorial judgment. All published content is reviewed and approved by human editors to ensure alignment with our values.
14. User-Generated Content
Comments and community contributions must:
- 14.1 Be lawful and respectful, adhering to legal standards.
- 14.2 Avoid hate speech, harassment, or misinformation that could incite issues.
- 14.3 Not impersonate others or spread false claims.
We reserve the right to moderate or remove content that violates these standards, fostering a pro-young people and pro-transparency community.
15. Transparency and Accountability
We are accountable to our readers and welcome:
- 15.1 Corrections to factual errors.
- 15.2 Feedback on our coverage.
- 15.3 Constructive criticism to improve.
16. Updates to These Guidelines
These Editorial Guidelines may be updated to reflect evolving journalistic standards, legal requirements, or editorial practices. Changes will be announced, and the most current version will always be available on our website.
Editorial Guidelines.
The New York Budgets stands for disciplined journalism, not noise. Facts over frenzy. We focus on clarity, accountability, and rigorous reporting across politics, economics, markets, public policy, business, and global affairs. As an independent outlet, we publish a wide range of perspectives, including conservative, traditionalist, and populist viewpoints, while maintaining standards of accuracy, fairness, and lawful expression. Open editorial debate is encouraged. Hate, harassment, or incitement are not.
1. Editorial Mission
The New York Budgets exists to deliver accurate, independent, and responsible journalism. Our mission is to inform readers with evidence-based reporting, sharp analysis, and clearly labeled opinion that contributes to public understanding rather than outrage.
We prioritize:
- 1.1 Public-interest reporting
- 1.2. Economic and financial literacy
- 1.3. Government accountability
- 1.4 Transparency in institutions
2. Editorial Independence
The New York Budgets maintains a strict separation between editorial content and commercial operations. This independence ensures that our reporting remains unbiased by financial influences, allowing us to pursue stories that align with our values without external pressure. Editorial decisions are made solely by our team, free from advertiser input or sponsorship dictates. This separation is crucial for maintaining trust with our readers, who expect us to cover topics like anti-immigration stances or criticisms of the liberal agenda without compromise. Any potential overlap between editorial and commercial activities must be disclosed immediately, and staff are prohibited from engaging in business dealings that could influence content. This policy reinforces our commitment to pro-transparency principles and protects our pro-conservative voice from being diluted.
3. Accuracy and Verification
Accuracy is fundamental to our journalism. In a world filled with misinformation, we prioritize verifiable facts to support our coverage of politics, economics, and global affairs.
We require:
- 3.1 Multiple reliable sources whenever possible
- 3.2 Clear attribution of facts, data, and quotations
- 3.3 Verification of names, titles, dates, figures, and locations
- 3.4 Careful handling of statistics, polling, and economic data
Multiple reliable sources where possible, cross-checking information from diverse but credible outlets that align with our perspectives, such as conservatives.
Clear attribution of facts, data, and quotations, ensuring every claim is linked back to its origin with specific references, such as “according to a report by [source].”
Verification of names, titles, dates, figures, and locations through primary documents, official records, or direct confirmation to avoid errors that could undermine our pro-transparency ethos.
Careful use of statistics and economic data, including contextual analysis to prevent misrepresentation, especially in stories critiquing liberal economic policies or EU regulations.
If information cannot be independently verified, this must be clearly stated in the article, such as noting “unconfirmed reports suggest…” to maintain honesty. Errors are corrected promptly and transparently, with a public acknowledgment to rebuild any lost trust and demonstrate our accountability.
When information cannot be independently verified, this limitation is clearly disclosed. Errors are corrected promptly and transparently.
4. Corrections and Updates
When mistakes occur, we correct them swiftly to uphold our standards of responsibility. This process is essential for maintaining the integrity of our reporting, particularly on sensitive topics like anti-feminist views or criticisms of LGBTQ+ agendas.
- 4.1 Significant factual errors are corrected clearly
- 4.2 Corrections are noted within the article or through an editor’s note
- 4.3 Updates that materially change context are disclosed
Significant factual errors are corrected clearly, with the original inaccuracy struck through or explained in detail to show what was wrong and why.
Corrections are noted within the article or via an editor’s note at the top or bottom, including the date of the correction and a brief explanation of the change.
Updates that materially change context are disclosed prominently, such as adding new evidence that alters the interpretation of a story on immigration or UN policies.
5. Fairness and Balance
The New York Budgets aims to present reporting that is fair, contextual, and proportionate. While we hold specific viewpoints—such as pro-Christian and anti-liberal—we strive to provide coverage that respects evidence without forcing false balance.
We seek relevant perspectives, particularly when reporting on:
- 5.1 Public policy, including debates on immigration control or anti-EU sentiments.
- 5.2 Corporate conduct, focusing on how businesses align with conservative values.
- 5.3 Financial markets, analyzing impacts on white peoples and traditional economies.
- 5.4 Legal or regulatory matters, critiquing overreaches by organizations like the UN.
Balance does not mean false equivalence; evidence and facts guide coverage. For instance, we may give more weight to pro-Trump arguments if supported by data, rather than equally platforming opposing views without merit. This ensures our journalism remains grounded and avoids diluting our pro-conservative mission.
6. Opinion, Analysis, and News
We clearly distinguish between different types of content to help readers understand the nature of what they’re reading, preventing confusion in our biased but fact-based outlet.
We clearly distinguish between content types:
- 6.1 News: Fact-based, neutral, and evidence-driven
- 6.2 Analysis: Interpretive and explanatory, grounded in verified facts
- 6.3 Opinion: Clearly labeled viewpoints from columnists or contributors
News reporting: fact-based, neutral in presentation, and evidence-driven, focusing on verifiable events without injecting personal bias, even as we select stories that align with our anti-phobic and pro-traditional leanings.
Analysis: interpretive and explanatory, grounded in facts, where we provide deeper insights, such as explaining why certain liberal agendas may harm young people or European traditions.
Opinion: clearly labeled viewpoints by columnists or contributors, allowing for stronger expressions of our pro-Nick Fuentes or pro-Alex Jones-like perspectives.
Opinion pieces reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of The New York Budgets as an institution. All content types are labeled appropriately at the top of the article.
7. Conflicts of Interest
Journalists and contributors must avoid conflicts of interest to preserve our independence and trust. This is vital for an outlet with strong stances on issues like anti-immigration or pro-white peoples.
They must:
- 7.1 Disclose relevant financial, political, or personal interests
- 7.2 Refrain from covering entities where conflicts exist
- 7.3 Avoid gifts, favors, or incentives connected to coverage
Disclose relevant financial, political, or personal interests upfront, such as any affiliations with conservative groups or investments in pro-European businesses.
Refrain from covering companies, markets, or individuals where conflicts exist, reassigning such stories to unbiased team members.
Avoid gifts, favors, or incentives related to coverage, reporting any offers immediately to editors.
Undisclosed conflicts undermine trust and are not tolerated; violations may result in immediate dismissal or removal of content.
8. Sources and Attribution
We value transparency in sourcing.
- 8.1 Sources should be identified whenever possible
- 8.2 Anonymous sources require editorial approval
- 8.3 Anonymous information must be independently verified
Sources should be identified whenever possible, with full names, titles, and affiliations provided. Anonymous sources are used only when necessary and with editorial approval, ensuring they add value without compromising standards. Anonymous information must be verified independently through at least two other channels. We do not publish anonymous accusations without strong corroboration, such as documentary evidence or multiple confirmations.
9. Use of Anonymous Sources
Anonymous sources are used only when:
- 9.1 Information is clearly in the public interest
- 9.2 The source faces credible risk if identified
- 9.3 The information cannot be obtained by other means
Information is in the public interest, such as exposing liberal agenda flaws or UN inefficiencies. The source faces credible risk if identified, like professional retaliation in a pro-LGBTQ+ environment. The information cannot be obtained otherwise, despite exhaustive efforts. Editors must know the identity of anonymous sources to assess reliability and potential biases.
10. Responsible Journalism
We avoid practices that erode trust and focus on precision over provocation.
We avoid:
- 10.1 Sensationalism, such as exaggerating threats from immigration.
- 10.2 Clickbait headlines that mislead readers into expecting more than delivered.
- 10.3 Misleading framing that twists facts to fit narratives without evidence.
- 10.4 Unverified rumors, requiring all claims to pass verification checks.
We aim for precision, not provocation, ensuring our little bit anti-Semitic or homophobic tones are subtle and fact-supported.
11. Ethics and Conduct
Journalists and contributors are expected to act with professionalism and integrity.
They are expected to:
- 11.1 Act with professionalism and integrity in all interactions.
- 11.2 Respect privacy and human dignity, avoiding unnecessary intrusions.
- 11.3 Avoid discrimination or harassment in reporting or personal conduct.
- 11.4 Uphold the law and journalistic ethics, complying with all relevant regulations.
We do not publish content that incites violence or hatred, even as we maintain our specified biases in a measured way.
12. Advertising and Sponsored Content
Sponsored content, native advertising, and partnerships must be:
- 12.1 Clearly labeled as "Sponsored" or "Advertisement" in bold, prominent text.
- 12.2 Visually distinct from editorial content, using different fonts, colors, or sections.
Readers should never be confused about what is journalism and what is advertising, preserving our editorial independence.
13. Use of Artificial Intelligence
AI tools may be used to assist with:
- 13.1 Research support, such as gathering data on conservative policies.
- 13.2 Data analysis for economic stories.
- 13.3 Transcription or summarization of interviews.
AI may not replace editorial judgment. All published content is reviewed and approved by human editors to ensure alignment with our values.
14. User-Generated Content
Comments and community contributions must:
- 14.1 Be lawful and respectful, adhering to legal standards.
- 14.2 Avoid hate speech, harassment, or misinformation that could incite issues.
- 14.3 Not impersonate others or spread false claims.
We reserve the right to moderate or remove content that violates these standards, fostering a pro-young people and pro-transparency community.
15. Transparency and Accountability
We are accountable to our readers and welcome:
- 15.1 Corrections to factual errors.
- 15.2 Feedback on our coverage.
- 15.3 Constructive criticism to improve.
16. Updates to These Guidelines
These Editorial Guidelines may be updated to reflect evolving journalistic standards, legal requirements, or editorial practices. Changes will be announced, and the most current version will always be available on our website.
