Last updated: October 5, 2026

This policy describes how Texcovery’s newsroom works: how we choose stories, where our information comes from, how we check it, how we fix mistakes, how we use software tools including AI, and how we keep money from influencing what we publish. It applies to everyone who writes or edits for us, including freelance contributors. We publish it so readers can hold us to it.

What we’re for

Texcovery exists to help readers understand technology and the companies building it, with a Canadian perspective. We choose stories based on whether they are important, new, useful or revealing, and whether we can add something that readers will not get from a press release or a wire story. We do not chase traffic with stories we cannot stand behind.

Sourcing

Primary sources first

Wherever possible, we go to the original: the court filing, the regulatory decision, the financial statement on SEDAR+ or EDGAR, the patent, the research paper, the technical documentation or the person who was in the room. When we cite a study, we read the study, not just the press release about it. We link to our sources in the article so readers can check them.

Company claims

Companies are a legitimate source of information about themselves, but they are not neutral. When a startup tells us its revenue, user numbers or valuation, we try to confirm the figure through filings, investors or other independent sources. If we cannot, we attribute it clearly (“the company says”) rather than presenting it as fact. Benchmark results and performance claims are treated the same way.

Other publications

When we build on another outlet’s reporting, we credit and link to it. We do not present other people’s scoops as our own.

Anonymous sources

We prefer named sources. We grant anonymity only when a source has direct knowledge of the facts, has a credible reason to fear harm such as losing their job, and the information is important enough to justify it. At least one editor must know the source’s identity and approve the arrangement. We explain to readers, as far as we can without identifying the source, why we granted anonymity and how the source knows what they know. We do not use anonymous sources to make personal attacks.

Protecting sources

We take source confidentiality seriously and will resist attempts to make us reveal confidential sources, to the extent the law allows. We advise potential sources on safer ways to contact us and do not ask them to break the law to get information to us.

Fact-checking

Every article is read by at least one editor in addition to the writer before it is published. Before publication:

• names, titles, dates, figures and quotes are checked against notes, recordings or documents;
• numbers are checked against a source an editor can open, and calculations are re-run;
• people and companies who are the subject of significant criticism or allegations are given a fair chance to respond, with a reasonable deadline, and their response (or lack of one) is reported;
• headlines and social posts are checked to make sure they reflect what the article actually says; and
• images are checked for licensing and accurate captions.

Investigative stories, and stories that make serious allegations, get an additional review by a second editor and, where appropriate, legal review.

Quotes are reproduced accurately. We may trim quotes for length or remove verbal filler, but we never change their meaning. We do not show quotes or articles to sources for approval before publication, though we may check facts or technical details with them.

Corrections and updates

When we make a factual error, we correct it promptly and transparently. Corrections are added at the end of the article, with the date and a plain description of what was wrong and what we changed. For significant errors, we also note the correction at the top of the article and in the next newsletter if the story ran there.

We distinguish between:

• Corrections, when we got a fact wrong;
• Clarifications, when something was accurate but could mislead; and
• Updates, when a story develops after publication, such as a company responding or new information emerging. Updates are dated.

Spelling, grammar and broken links are fixed without a note unless they changed the meaning. We do not delete published articles to hide mistakes. In rare cases, we may remove or anonymize an article, for example to protect someone’s safety or comply with a court order, and we will say so where we can.

To request a correction, email [email protected] with the link, the error and the evidence. We aim to respond within one business day.

Use of AI and software tools

We cover artificial intelligence closely, and we think readers deserve a clear answer about how we use it ourselves.

What we may use tools for

Our editors and writers may use software tools, including AI-based tools, to help with research and production. Examples include:

• searching and summarizing large documents, such as a long court filing or a regulatory consultation, to find the passages worth reading closely;
• transcribing recorded interviews;
• translating source material, with important passages checked by a fluent speaker;
• checking spelling, grammar and style; and
• suggesting alternative headlines or summaries for an editor to choose from or rewrite.

What humans always do

A human being reviews and takes responsibility for everything we publish. Every fact that comes out of a tool is checked against the original source before it appears in an article, because AI tools can produce confident and convincing errors. Our reporting, interviews, analysis and judgment are done by people. A named Texcovery writer or editor is accountable for every article.

What we don’t do

• We do not publish articles generated by AI and presented as written by people.
• We do not use AI to create fake quotes, invent sources or simulate interviews.
• We do not use AI-generated images to depict real events or real people. If we ever publish an AI-generated illustration, for instance to explain a concept in an article about image generation, it will be clearly labelled as such.
• We do not paste confidential source material, unpublished documents from sources or readers’ personal information into AI tools that might store it or use it for training.

If we significantly change how we use these tools, we will update this section.

Independence and conflicts of interest

Our editorial decisions are made by our editors, not by advertisers, sponsors, affiliate partners, investors or the companies we cover.

Staff and contributors

• Writers and editors must disclose to an editor any financial interest (such as shares, options or tokens), advisory role, consulting work, family relationship or close personal relationship involving a company or person they are covering.
• Staff do not trade in shares or crypto assets of companies they are actively reporting on, and do not trade on information they learn through their work before it is published.
• Where a conflict exists, we reassign the story. If that is not possible and we decide to proceed, we disclose the conflict clearly in the article.
• Staff do not take paid work, such as consulting, copywriting or speaking fees, from companies on their beat.

Gifts, travel and review products

We do not accept gifts beyond token items of trivial value such as a coffee at a meeting. We pay our own way to events and for travel where we can. If a company pays for travel or accommodation for a story we consider newsworthy, we say so in the article. Review products are either bought by us or loaned by manufacturers and returned; any samples we keep are not resold. Manufacturers do not see reviews before they are published.

Our own business

When we write about a company that advertises with us, sponsors our newsletter or has an affiliate relationship with us, the relationship does not affect the coverage, and the writer may not even know about it. Where the relationship is relevant to the story, we disclose it.

Sponsored content and advertising

We clearly separate journalism from paid content:

• Sponsored articles and newsletter segments are labelled “Sponsored” or “Paid partnership” at the top, with the sponsor’s name. They are written or approved by the sponsor or by our commercial team, never by our news staff.
• Sponsored content is visually distinct from editorial content and is never presented as a news story or review.
• Links in sponsored content are marked with rel="sponsored".
• We do not sell links, mentions or placements in editorial articles. Pitches offering payment for coverage are declined.
• Affiliate links in editorial content are disclosed at the top of the article. They are added after editors decide what to recommend, never before.

Advertisers may not review, approve or request changes to editorial content, and buying advertising does not buy coverage, positive or otherwise. See our disclaimer and advertising page for more.

Fairness and harm

We aim to be fair to the people and organizations we cover, including those we criticize. We avoid unnecessary harm: we do not publish personal details such as home addresses, we take particular care with stories involving minors, victims of crime or people in crisis, and we do not publish stolen personal data from breaches even when it is newsworthy that the breach happened. In cybersecurity coverage, we do not publish working exploit code or details that would mainly help attackers.

Reader comments

We welcome debate in our comment sections. Comments are moderated according to our terms and conditions, and we remove abuse, spam and defamatory content. Removing a comment because it is abusive is not the same as removing it because we disagree with it, and we try hard not to confuse the two.

Questions about this policy

If you think we have fallen short of these standards, tell us at [email protected]. A senior editor will review your concern and respond.