Editorial Standard BTM-002

Image featuring a cluttered desk with stacks of files labeled 'Primary Source', a magnifying glass over a document marked 'Public Record', and notes about reporting and verification.

Our Standards. Our Methods. Our Accountability.

Journalism ultimately asks readers to trust that what they are being told has a basis in reality.

At The Maine Mirror, we believe the strongest way to earn that trust is not simply to ask for it.

We should show our work.

Primary-source material is the foundation of The Maine Mirror’s original reporting.

Our reporting begins with the records, communications, recordings, interviews, proceedings, data, documents, and other underlying evidence relevant to the story—not merely with what someone else says those materials contain.

The Maine Mirror reports on government, public institutions, elected officials, public records, community issues, and other matters of public interest. Some of that reporting involves complicated records, competing accounts, allegations of wrongdoing, institutional decisions, or questions where the complete truth may not yet be known.

Those circumstances demand care.

This editorial standard establishes how The Maine Mirror approaches primary sources, evidence, verification, attribution, quotations, allegations, public records, requests for comment, analysis, factual uncertainty, conflicts, and transparency.

Our standard begins with a simple principle:

Primary sources before conclusions. Evidence before assertions. Accuracy before certainty.

Our job is not to make the available evidence fit a predetermined story.

Our job is to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

1. Primary Sources Are the Foundation of Our Reporting

The Maine Mirror’s original reporting is grounded in primary-source material.

We do not merely want to know what someone says a document contains.

We want to examine the document.

We do not merely want to know what someone says happened at a public meeting.

When a recording, transcript, minutes, agenda, correspondence, or other direct record is available, we examine the underlying material.

We do not want another person’s characterization of legislation when the legislation itself can be reviewed.

We do not want an allegation repeated so many times that repetition becomes a substitute for evidence.

Depending on the story, primary-source material may include:

Secondary sources can provide valuable context, identify questions worth investigating, point toward primary evidence, or help explain a larger issue.

But secondary reporting does not replace our responsibility to examine the primary evidence underlying our own material factual conclusions.

Another source can tell us where to look. Our responsibility is to look.

2. Evidence Determines the Strength of the Conclusion

Not all evidence carries the same weight.

An authenticated government record and an anonymous social-media comment are not equivalent simply because both contain information.

A firsthand recording and someone’s recollection of what another person supposedly said are not equivalent.

An allegation written into an official government document and an independently established factual finding are not necessarily the same thing.

The strength of our language and conclusions should reflect the strength of the evidence supporting them.

When the evidence is conclusive, our reporting can say so.

When the evidence strongly indicates something without conclusively establishing it, our language should reflect that distinction.

When evidence conflicts, readers should understand that conflict.

When evidence is incomplete, we should acknowledge the limitation.

Certainty should never exceed the evidence supporting it.

3. Public Records and FOAA Reporting

Public records are central to The Maine Mirror’s accountability journalism.

Maine’s Freedom of Access Act and other public-record mechanisms provide journalists and members of the public with an opportunity to examine how government actually operates.

The Maine Mirror uses public records to examine matters such as:

But the existence of an official record does not mean every statement contained within it is automatically true.

A government employee documenting an allegation does not transform that allegation into an established fact merely because it now appears in a government file.

An official record may establish that something was reported, written, communicated, requested, decided, recorded, or alleged without independently proving the truth of every underlying assertion.

That distinction is essential.

Government records are evidence.

They must still be read critically.

4. Documents Must Be Read in Context

Authentic evidence can still create a misleading impression when stripped of context.

The Maine Mirror should examine surrounding material whenever it could materially affect the meaning of a document, quotation, communication, or event.

That may include:

We will not knowingly remove material context for the purpose of making evidence appear to establish something it does not.

Context is part of accuracy.

5. Verification Should Match the Seriousness of the Claim

Not every factual assertion requires the same level of verification.

A meeting date appearing on an official municipal agenda does not require the same scrutiny as an allegation of corruption, criminal conduct, abuse of authority, dishonesty, professional misconduct, or another serious accusation.

As the seriousness, uncertainty, or potential consequences of a factual assertion increase, so should the scrutiny applied to it.

When examining significant claims, The Maine Mirror considers questions such as:

What is the primary source?

What does that source actually establish?

Can the information be independently corroborated?

Does other available evidence support or contradict it?

Is the source in a position to know what they claim to know?

Could missing context materially change the meaning?

Is there another reasonable explanation?

Are we reporting what the evidence demonstrates—or what we suspect it might mean?

Verification is not a box to check.

It is an effort to reduce the possibility that readers are being given an inaccurate, exaggerated, or materially incomplete understanding of events.

6. Allegations Are Not Findings

The Maine Mirror may report allegations when they are newsworthy, relevant, and responsibly sourced.

But an allegation does not become a finding simply because it appears in an article.

If an individual alleges wrongdoing, we should identify it as an allegation unless evidence establishes something more.

If a government agency makes an accusation, that accusation does not automatically become fact because the government made it.

Likewise, an accusation against a government agency does not automatically become fact because a critic, whistleblower, advocate, journalist, or source made it.

The evidentiary standard applies regardless of who is making the claim.

Language should accurately communicate what has—and has not—been established.

Terms such as:

can communicate important distinctions.

These are not meaningless qualifiers.

They help readers understand the status of the evidence.

We should tell readers what we know, how we know it, and what remains uncertain.

7. Inference Is Not Proof

Investigative reporting often involves identifying patterns, discrepancies, relationships, or potential connections that are not explicitly stated in a single document.

That can be valuable journalism.

It also requires discipline.

Evidence may establish Fact A and Fact B without conclusively proving Conclusion C.

When The Maine Mirror draws an inference from available evidence, our language should make the distinction clear.

We should not knowingly present an interpretation as though it were independently established fact.

When multiple reasonable explanations remain possible, readers should understand that uncertainty.

Strong evidence can support strong conclusions.

Incomplete evidence requires greater restraint.

8. Chronology Matters

Timelines frequently reveal information that individual documents cannot.

The Maine Mirror may organize primary-source material chronologically to understand:

Chronology can reveal important relationships.

But sequence alone does not necessarily establish causation.

The fact that Event B occurred after Event A does not automatically prove that Event A caused Event B.

Where chronology supports an inference rather than establishing causation, our reporting should reflect that distinction.

9. Quotations Must Be Authentic

Direct quotations attributed to real people should reflect words they actually spoke or wrote.

Quotations may come from:

Quotations should not be altered in a manner that materially changes the speaker’s meaning.

Ellipses, excerpts, shortened quotations, or surrounding editorial language should not be used to manufacture an impression materially different from the original statement.

When the exact wording or context of an important quotation is uncertain, the underlying source should control.

As established in BTM-001 — Artificial Intelligence & Editorial Transparency, AI may assist with transcription, document searching, or locating quotations.

AI may not invent words and attribute them to a real person.

10. Paraphrasing Must Preserve Meaning

Not every statement needs to appear as a direct quotation.

Journalists routinely summarize complicated documents, meetings, correspondence, interviews, and statements.

A paraphrase should accurately communicate the substance of the underlying source.

We should not use paraphrasing to make someone’s position appear stronger, weaker, more inflammatory, more certain, or materially different from what the source actually communicated.

When precise wording is important to the story, direct quotation or access to the underlying source may be preferable.

11. Screenshots and Social Media Require Verification

Social-media content can provide legitimate evidence of what someone publicly communicated.

It also presents unique verification challenges.

Posts can be deleted.

Accounts can be impersonated.

Screenshots can be edited.

Content can be cropped.

Context can disappear.

When social-media content is materially important to a story, The Maine Mirror should make reasonable efforts to establish:

Screenshots can preserve important evidence.

The existence of a screenshot alone does not automatically authenticate everything depicted within it.

12. Tips Are Leads, Not Evidence by Themselves

Community members, whistleblowers, public employees, advocates, readers, elected officials, organizations, and other individuals may bring information to The Maine Mirror.

Tips matter.

They can reveal questions nobody else is asking.

They can point toward documents nobody has examined.

They can expose problems that deserve public scrutiny.

But a tip is ordinarily the beginning of the reporting process—not the conclusion.

Significant factual claims supplied through tips should be examined against primary-source documentation, recordings, public records, direct communications, additional sources, or other evidence whenever possible.

A source’s credibility matters.

The evidence matters more.

13. Anonymous and Confidential Sources Require Greater Care

There may be circumstances where a source possesses important information but reasonably fears retaliation, employment consequences, harassment, legal exposure, personal danger, or other significant harm from being publicly identified.

The Maine Mirror may protect a source’s identity when circumstances justify doing so.

Anonymity does not eliminate scrutiny.

It increases the need for it.

Significant allegations from unidentified sources should receive heightened caution because readers cannot independently evaluate the source’s identity, motivations, access, or credibility.

Where possible, anonymous claims should be supported by:

When appropriate, The Maine Mirror should provide enough information about an anonymous source’s relationship to the subject for readers to understand why that person may possess relevant knowledge without revealing information that would compromise legitimate confidentiality.

Anonymous sourcing should allow important evidence to reach the public.

It should never become a shortcut around verification.

14. Secondary Reporting Provides Context—Not a Substitute for Primary Evidence

The Maine Mirror reads and may cite reporting produced by other journalists and news organizations.

Other journalism can:

When another journalist or publication originated reporting relevant to our work, appropriate attribution should be provided.

Credit belongs where credit is due.

But another publication’s article should not ordinarily become the sole evidence establishing a material factual conclusion in The Maine Mirror’s original reporting when the underlying primary source can be obtained and examined.

Another publication can tell us where to look. Our responsibility is to look.

15. Requests for Comment Are Part of Verification

Seeking comment is not merely a journalistic courtesy.

It can be part of the verification process.

A person or organization facing significant criticism may possess documents, context, explanations, or evidence that materially changes the story.

When The Maine Mirror intends to publish significant allegations involving wrongdoing, misconduct, dishonesty, abuse of authority, corruption, criminal conduct, professional misconduct, or similarly serious criticism concerning an identifiable person or organization, we should make reasonable efforts to obtain their response before publication when practicable.

A request should provide enough information for the recipient to understand the substance of the issue and meaningfully respond.

What constitutes a reasonable opportunity depends on the circumstances.

Breaking news may require a shorter period.

Complex investigative reporting may justify more time.

Public safety, urgency, repeated prior nonresponse, inability to locate someone, developing events, or other circumstances may affect what is reasonably possible.

Seeking comment does not give the subject of reporting control over publication.

It does not require The Maine Mirror to accept an unsupported denial as equivalent to documentary evidence.

It means we are willing to ask:

Is there something important we are missing?

16. No Response Is Not an Admission

When someone does not respond to a request for comment, The Maine Mirror should accurately describe what occurred.

Depending on the circumstances, that may mean telling readers that an individual or organization:

Those circumstances are not interchangeable.

Failure to respond does not prove an allegation.

Silence should not be transformed into evidence of guilt.

We should report what actually happened.

17. Fairness Does Not Require False Equivalence

Giving someone an opportunity to respond does not mean every claim deserves equal evidentiary weight.

If one position is supported by extensive primary-source documentation and another rests only on unsupported assertion, responsible reporting does not require pretending that the positions are equally substantiated.

Likewise, government status does not automatically make an official account more credible than contradictory primary evidence.

Nor does opposition to government automatically make a critic’s account more credible.

Evidence determines weight.

Fairness means accurately representing relevant evidence and meaningful competing explanations.

It does not mean manufacturing balance where the evidence itself is not balanced.

18. Lived Experience Can Reveal Questions Worth Investigating

Journalists are human beings.

Their experiences affect the questions they recognize as important.

The Maine Mirror believes lived experience can reveal problems, perspectives, institutional failures, and blind spots that traditional systems may overlook.

It can inspire questions.

It can identify records worth requesting.

It can expose processes worthy of examination.

It can help journalists recognize experiences shared by other members of the community.

It can motivate persistent investigation when others have moved on.

But lived experience is not automatically proof of a broader factual conclusion.

Personal experience can tell us where to look. Primary-source reporting must determine what the evidence establishes.

19. Personal Involvement and Conflicts Should Be Disclosed When Material

Independent journalism does not require pretending journalists have no experiences, perspectives, relationships, advocacy, opinions, or history.

It does require honesty when those circumstances are materially relevant to the reporting.

When The Maine Mirror, its editor, or a contributor has significant personal involvement in the subject of a story, an advocacy relationship, financial interest, close personal relationship, or another circumstance that a reasonable reader would consider important when evaluating the work, that relationship should be disclosed when appropriate.

Disclosure does not automatically disqualify someone from reporting.

Personal involvement does not make primary-source evidence disappear.

Nor does transparency eliminate the need for rigorous sourcing.

Disclosure gives readers additional information with which to evaluate the journalism for themselves.

20. Reporting, Analysis, Commentary and Advocacy Must Remain Distinguishable

The Maine Mirror may publish:

These formats may overlap, but they are not identical.

Reporting primarily communicates information established through sourcing and evidence.

Investigative reporting uses evidence, records, interviews, analysis, and sustained inquiry to uncover information or relationships that may not otherwise be readily apparent.

Analysis examines what established facts may mean, how they relate to one another, or what consequences may follow.

Commentary and opinion communicate judgments, arguments, interpretations, or perspectives.

Advocacy-related content may explicitly seek awareness, reform, participation, accountability, or another public response.

Where the distinction matters to a reasonable reader, the nature of the content should be clear.

But the evidentiary standard does not disappear because something contains analysis, commentary, or advocacy.

Opinion does not receive permission to invent facts.

Advocacy does not transform allegations into evidence.

Analysis does not transform inference into certainty.

Factual assertions remain accountable to the evidence supporting them.

21. Artificial Intelligence Does Not Change Our Source Standard

As established in BTM-001 — Artificial Intelligence & Editorial Transparency, The Maine Mirror uses artificial intelligence as a research, organizational, writing, production, and accessibility tool.

AI may help us:

But AI does not replace primary-source evidence.

If AI says a public official made a statement, we examine the source establishing that the statement was actually made.

If AI identifies an apparent contradiction, we examine the underlying records.

If AI suggests two events may be connected, we examine whether evidence actually supports the connection.

If AI generates an unsupported factual assertion, its confidence does not make the assertion true.

The relationship between BTM-001 and BTM-002 is therefore straightforward:

AI can help The Maine Mirror analyze primary sources. It cannot replace them.

Technology can accelerate investigation.

It cannot lower the evidentiary standard.

22. AI-Generated Images Are Never Evidence

The Maine Mirror may use AI-generated imagery for article featured images, editorial illustrations, graphics, and other visual presentation, as established in BTM-001.

Those images are illustrative.

They are not evidence.

When The Maine Mirror presents an authentic photograph, screenshot, document, recording, video, or other primary-source item as evidence, that evidentiary material is fundamentally different from an AI-generated article image.

The Maine Mirror will not knowingly use generative AI to manufacture visual “proof” of an event and present it as authentic evidence.

AI can illustrate the reporting. It cannot create the evidence supporting it.

23. Readers Should Be Able to Examine the Evidence

The Maine Mirror is committed to showing readers the primary-source evidence underlying our reporting whenever it can be published legally, ethically, responsibly, and practically.

That may include:

There are legitimate circumstances where evidence should not be published publicly.

Those can include:

Transparency does not require irresponsibility.

But when those concerns do not prevent disclosure, we believe readers benefit from seeing the evidence themselves.

Don’t simply tell readers what a document says when you can responsibly let them see the document.

24. The Evidence Should Be Separable From Our Interpretation

The Maine Mirror believes readers should be able, whenever reasonably possible, to distinguish between:

what the evidence itself shows;

and

what The Maine Mirror believes that evidence means.

Those are related but distinct.

Providing primary-source material allows readers to examine our interpretation rather than being forced to accept it.

A reader may review the same document and reach a different conclusion.

That disagreement does not necessarily mean either party is acting dishonestly.

Our responsibility is to accurately represent the evidence, explain the basis for our conclusions, identify material uncertainty, and give readers enough information to evaluate our reasoning.

Showing our work makes disagreement more informed.

25. We Will Say When We Don’t Know

One of the easiest mistakes in journalism is treating uncertainty as weakness.

We believe the opposite.

Sometimes the most accurate sentence a journalist can write is:

We don’t know yet.

An investigation may uncover compelling evidence without answering every question.

A government agency may withhold records.

A FOAA request may remain pending.

Witnesses may disagree.

Documents may be incomplete.

A person may decline to respond.

Relevant records may not exist.

Evidence may support several reasonable interpretations.

When important uncertainty remains, The Maine Mirror should communicate it rather than manufacture certainty for the sake of a stronger narrative or headline.

We can continue investigating.

We can obtain additional records.

We can ask more questions.

We can update our reporting when new evidence becomes available.

Accuracy is more important than pretending every question has already been answered.

26. New Evidence Can Change Our Understanding

Reporting reflects what can responsibly be established from the evidence available at a particular point in time.

New records may later become available.

A source may come forward.

A government agency may finally respond.

A previously unavailable recording may be obtained.

Additional evidence may contradict an earlier understanding.

A public record itself may be corrected.

Responsible journalism must remain capable of changing when the evidence changes.

Updating a story because better information became available is not inherently a failure.

Refusing to acknowledge better evidence would be.

A separate Behind the Mirror standard will establish The Maine Mirror’s formal practices for corrections, clarifications, updates, and reader challenges.

27. Readers Are Part of the Accountability Process

The Maine Mirror does not believe scrutiny should flow in only one direction.

If we ask readers to examine government records, challenge institutional narratives, and demand evidence from powerful organizations, readers should be equally free to examine our work.

If you believe a Maine Mirror article contains:

we want to know.

Show us the evidence.

We will examine it.

Disagreement alone does not establish an error.

Evidence can.

And when credible evidence demonstrates that we got something materially wrong, accountability requires us to address it.

28. Our Standard Is Not Perfection

No responsible journalism organization can honestly promise that every article will always be perfect.

Human beings make mistakes.

Sources make mistakes.

Government records can contain errors.

Witnesses can remember events differently.

Documents can be incomplete.

Technology can fail.

Information changes.

What we can establish publicly is the standard governing how we approach those realities.

We will begin with primary sources.

We will examine the evidence.

We will distinguish allegations from findings.

We will distinguish inference from proof.

We will identify material uncertainty.

We will seek meaningful responses when fairness and verification require them.

We will show readers our evidence whenever responsibly possible.

We will remain willing to examine contrary evidence.

And when credible evidence demonstrates that our understanding needs to change, we will change it.

Behind the Mirror

The Maine Mirror asks public institutions to explain how they reached their conclusions.

Readers have every right to ask the same of us.

What is your source?

Where is the underlying record?

What does the evidence actually establish?

Is this a fact, an allegation, an inference, or an opinion?

Did you examine the primary source?

Did the person being criticized have an opportunity to respond?

Is important context missing?

Can I examine the evidence myself?

Those are not hostile questions.

They are good questions.

They are questions journalists should ask government.

They are questions the public should ask journalists.

And they are questions The Maine Mirror should be prepared to answer.

That is what Behind the Mirror is about.

Our Standards. Our Methods. Our Accountability.

Our Reporting Standard, in One Sentence

Start with the primary sources, follow the evidence wherever it leads, distinguish what is established from what is alleged or inferred, show readers the evidence whenever responsibly possible, and never allow the story we expected to find to become more important than the facts we actually found.

Editorial Standard Information

Title: Reporting, Sourcing & Verification
Standard Number: BTM-002
Version: 1.0
Effective Date: August 2026
Series: Behind the Mirror — Editorial Standards
Applies To: The Maine Mirror reporting, investigations, analysis, commentary, advocacy-related content, and associated editorial material
Document Owner: The Maine Mirror
Status: Public Editorial Standard

Related Standard: BTM-001 — Artificial Intelligence & Editorial Transparency

Review and Revision: This standard will be reviewed periodically and when experience, changes in journalistic practice, reader feedback, new evidence, or The Maine Mirror’s operations demonstrate that clarification or improvement is warranted. Material revisions will be reflected through an updated version number and effective date.

Behind the Mirror is The Maine Mirror’s public editorial standards initiative: Our Standards. Our Methods. Our Accountability.

Discover more from The Maine Mirror

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Maine Mirror

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Discover more from The Maine Mirror

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading