Standards Editor: Who, and what, determines which news is fit to publish?

  standards-editor-who-and-what-determines-which-news-is-fit-to-publish.html
  Media and Entertainment on Sat, Oct 04th, 2025 by The Globe and Mail

Who and What Determines Which News Is Fit to Publish? An Inside Look at Editorial Decision‑Making

When a headline goes live, it isn’t the result of a single impulse or a spontaneous decision by an individual editor. Instead, it is the culmination of a deliberate, multi‑layered process that blends journalistic values, institutional policies, and practical constraints. In a recent piece from The Globe & Mail’s Standards Editor, the inner workings of that process are laid bare, offering readers an illuminating view into the criteria that guide a newsroom’s editorial choices.

The Hierarchy of Gatekeepers

At the heart of every newsroom is a chain of editors whose responsibilities overlap but whose focus differs. The piece starts by outlining three key roles:

1. Desk Editors – They serve as the first checkpoint. Their job is to evaluate the raw story for factual accuracy, timeliness, and relevance. Desk editors often flag potential ethical dilemmas or conflicts of interest early in the process.

2. Senior or Lead Editors – These seasoned journalists take over when a story hits higher stakes. They are responsible for the narrative structure, the balance of perspectives, and the overall integrity of the piece. Their influence is felt most strongly in hard‑news stories or investigative pieces that could spark public debate.

3. Standards Editor (the article’s author) – Acting as the newsroom’s conscience, the standards editor ensures that every published article aligns with the broader ethical and professional guidelines that the outlet has committed to upholding. Their remit covers everything from source verification to compliance with privacy laws.

The article emphasizes that no single person has the final say; rather, the editorial board or an established editorial committee may step in for contentious stories. This democratic structure is designed to mitigate bias and maintain consistency across the publication.

The Core Decision Factors

When a story is under review, editors weigh a handful of key factors. The Standards Editor distills these into a concise framework:

These factors are not applied in isolation. For instance, a highly accurate story about a private individual’s personal crisis may still be declined if the potential harm outweighs the public interest.

Guiding Documents and Industry Benchmarks

The article cites several formal documents that shape the editorial standards:

• The Globe & Mail’s Editorial Standards Policy – A living document that outlines the publication’s expectations for accuracy, fairness, and accountability. The Standards Editor refers readers to the policy’s online version for deeper context.

• The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics – Widely adopted in North America, the SPJ’s “Seek Truth & Report It” principle is frequently invoked during editorial discussions.

• Canadian Press (CP) Code of Ethics – As a Canadian news outlet, the Globe & Mail aligns with CP guidelines on impartiality, verification, and the right to privacy.

• Poynter’s “Fact‑Checking Checklist” – Many newsrooms, including The Globe & Mail, use Poynter’s detailed checklist to systematically verify facts, especially for complex stories involving data, statistics, or scientific claims.

The Standards Editor stresses that while these documents provide a shared vocabulary, the real decision‑making happens at the newsroom’s table, where journalists discuss context, nuance, and judgment calls that the policy can’t fully capture.

The “Publish or Pass” Decision in Practice

To illustrate how these principles play out, the article walks readers through three real‑world scenarios that the newsroom has faced over the past year:

1. A Viral Social‑Media Story – A user‑generated video that went viral claimed a city official had misused funds. The initial story was flagged by desk editors for lack of independent verification. A senior editor ordered a fact‑checking sweep, which revealed a misidentified official. The piece was rewritten with added context and ultimately published after all sources were confirmed.

2. A Sensitive Health Report – An investigative piece on a local hospital’s handling of a disease outbreak raised questions about patient safety. While the story met accuracy and public‑interest thresholds, it also risked defamation. The standards editor convened a rapid ethics review, added a note of uncertainty where data was incomplete, and secured legal counsel’s approval before publication.

3. A Political Opinion Piece – A column critiquing a government policy had an editor’s note that the writer’s previous political involvement could bias the piece. The editorial board decided to include a disclaimer about the writer’s affiliations, thereby preserving transparency while still allowing the argument to reach readers.

Each example underscores that the editorial process is flexible enough to handle nuance yet rigid enough to protect the outlet’s reputation.

The Role of the Reader

The article ends with a call for reader engagement. The Standards Editor explains that the publication relies on public feedback to refine its guidelines. By commenting on stories, readers can flag inaccuracies or point out omissions, which then trigger a “post‑publication review.” The newsroom even holds quarterly town‑hall meetings where readers and journalists discuss what works and what could be improved.

Bottom Line

Who and what determines whether a piece gets published is not an arbitrary question; it is the product of a system designed to uphold journalistic integrity while balancing the practical realities of news production. Through a combination of defined roles, a clear set of criteria, and a reliance on established ethical frameworks, The Globe & Mail’s editorial team ensures that the stories that make it to print or online reflect both accuracy and public interest. As the Standards Editor reminds us, the ultimate goal is not merely to inform but to do so responsibly, with respect for the people whose lives are touched by the headlines.