Editorial standards
OZJF should publish with standards visible enough that a skeptical reader can understand how a page was assembled. The goal is not to mimic a neutral wire service. The goal is to be explicit about sourcing, labeling, tone, correction practice, and the difference between argument and unsupported assertion.
Labeling and attribution
Pages should distinguish among record, analysis, commentary, and campaign language. Factual claims should be sourced and dated. Interpretation should be labeled as interpretation. Opinion should not be presented as if it were a source document.
Corrections and updates
Corrections should be treated as part of quality control, not as an embarrassment. When OZJF materially changes a factual claim, a citation, or a page framing that affects the meaning of the piece, the change should be documented on the corrections route rather than silently buried.
Useful public standards
The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics and the AAPOR Transparency Initiative are useful public references for accuracy, attribution, disclosure, and methodology transparency, even though OZJF is an advocacy organization rather than a neutral newsroom.