As with any truth-seeking journalism organization, PJP has an unwavering commitment to accuracy and fairness. We deal in facts obtained through personal observation, reporting and interviews. 

But our writers work in prison, often under hostile conditions, and that means the rules of traditional journalism don’t always — and can’t always — apply. While most journalism organizations often have to report on prisons by relying on second hand or administrative sources, PJP tells the story of mass incarceration in the United States through firsthand, lived accounts of life inside. This requires a different but no less rigorous set of standards.

To the extent we are able, we take care to ensure that a strict adherence to principle does not needlessly compromise a writer’s safety. Below are some of the ways in which we may operate differently than traditional newsrooms, and a few other considerations specific to our work with incarcerated writers.

Empathetic editing

PJP’s duty of care philosophy places the wellbeing of our writers at the center of our editorial and organizational operations. Core to this approach is an editing practice grounded in empathy, humility and an awareness of our writers’ uniquely challenging circumstances. To learn more, read our Guide to Empathetic Editing.

Anonymity

In cases where safety is a primary concern, we may choose to offer writers or sources anonymity, including pseudonyms. In general, we will provide at least one identifying characteristic of the source or writer in order to establish their connection to the story.  We will share with readers the reasons why we are choosing this approach. While anonymity is generally (though by no means completely) avoided in traditional journalism, we view it as a necessary tool to encourage the disclosure of critical information without exposing our writers/sources to potential reprisals. This approach allows writers/sources to share valuable insights and information that might not otherwise be reported. Questions we consider when deciding whether to grant a writer/source anonymity:

How does the writer/source know the information?

What’s their motivation for reporting it?

Have they proved reliable in the past?

Can we corroborate the information they provide? 

If not, is the information plausible and/or probable?

Do other examples of certain information exist in local or national reporting?

Does reporting the information pose a danger to the writer/source? 

Claims, attribution and lived-experience journalism

We practice what we call “lived-experience journalism,” which prioritizes credible personal observations, experiences and interactions within the writer’s immediate environment. Skeptical readers may ask of writers we publish, “How do you know what you say you know?” We too are constantly asking this question. We require writers to enhance the credibility of their reporting and writing by detailing how they acquired certain information — for example, whether from their own observations, documents, conversations with neighbors, or overheard comments from nearby cells. By insisting on a high level of specificity, we aim to bring transparency to the writer’s account and offer readers a sense of why we believe the claims are true.  

In the articles we publish, we commit to transparency by disclosing, when appropriate, how we obtained information, how we verified it and, if there are limitations to verification, what those are. 

Fact checking

PJP takes accuracy seriously. All of our stories are fact checked to confirm basic facts, including  names, locations and numbers. On more consequential stories, we will direct more resources to verification, including requesting documents from writers and other concrete evidence when necessary. 

However, some facts are simply not able to be checked. In these cases, we determine the credibility of a fact or claim based on conversations with the writer and the supporting evidence the writer can provide or an editor can obtain through their own reporting. In addition, our fact checkers ask: “Is this claim plausible? Is it probable? Can it be substantiated? Have other examples of this occurred?” 

The kinds of supporting evidence we rely on can include, but are not limited to, the following: testimony from other incarcerated people or family members; lawsuits and/or settlements; public records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests; and local and national reporting. When relevant, we transparently disclose the limitations of our reporting in what we publish. 

Reaching out for comment

Given the potential risks to our writers, we seek comment from prison administrations in instances where a writer clearly and emphatically gives their consent, and we do not  in instances where a writer expresses concern about their safety. 

When we decide not to seek comment, we disclose this choice to readers, explaining that it is a deliberate measure to protect our writers from being identified or targeted prior to publication.

When we do reach out for comment, we do so under the auspices of our organization, rather than as representatives of individual writers. This approach allows some protection to our contributors from being directly associated with the reporting, offering a degree of institutional cover. In our communications with prison administrations, we identify Prison Journalism Project as the entity conducting the inquiry, thereby preserving the writer’s anonymity ahead of publication and reducing, if only temporarily, the risk of retaliation. This approach also allows us to show a prison administration the full scope of a story, including positive aspects.

At Prison Journalism Project, we prioritize ongoing consent from writers and, when possible, their incarcerated sources throughout our editorial process. Our empathetic editing approach respects the agency of writers to make decisions for themselves. Editors clearly communicate journalistic standards to writers, including the need for verification and outreach for comment to entities and people named in a story. We never seek comment or engage other inside sources or outside relations without the writer’s explicit, enthusiastic consent. And writers can withdraw a story at any time before publication. We retract stories from the website only in extraordinary circumstances. 

Censorship and retaliation

Our job is not to stifle, censor or control our writers’ ability to make decisions for themselves. Rather, it is to equip them with the tools and information to make decisions about what level of risk they are comfortable with. Sometimes that means publishing stories, with their informed consent, that could result in personal repercussions and consequences. 

PJP is not legally obligated to protect our writers in cases of retaliation or legal action. But we, and our pro bono general counsel, are prepared to take legal action in precedent-setting cases that could help protect the rights of all prison journalists. Part of carving out freedom of the press inside is to defend our writers’ work or challenge wrongful treatment as a result of their writing. 

See “Laws Around Prison Journalism” in our Prison Journalism Navigator for more information.