Editorial Standards & Ethics
Why a cannabis publication needs stricter rules, not looser ones
Cannabis journalism operates in a low-trust environment. The industry is young and promotional, the science is frequently oversold, the politics are polarized, and much of the coverage that exists is written either by enthusiasts or by opponents. TIMES OF CANNABIS takes the opposite lesson from that landscape: a subject this contested needs standards that are tighter than average, written down, and enforceable by readers. These are ours. Where we fail them, our corrections policy is the remedy, and support@timesofcannabis.com is the door.
Science without hype
The fastest way to lose a reader’s trust in this field is a miracle headline. Our rules for research coverage:
- We report what a study found, not what a press release says it found. The paper itself is the source, as our fact-checking policy requires.
- Every research story states the type of study, the sample size, and the major limitations, in the body of the article and not in a footnote. A cell study is not a clinical result. An observational association is not causation. A survey is not a trial.
- Words like cure, breakthrough, and proven do not appear in our science coverage unless we are quoting someone, and then we say who and examine the claim.
- Funding sources of research are reported. Industry-funded studies are not disqualified, but the reader learns who paid.
- Negative and null results are covered. A publication that only reports promising findings is doing marketing.
The same discipline applies in the other direction. We do not inflate harms to appear tough-minded. The evidence gets reported at its actual strength, whichever way it points.
Independence from the industry we cover
This is the core of the document, and it is short and absolute.
- No member of the editorial team accepts undisclosed payment, gifts of meaningful value, equity, revenue share, or any other consideration from any cannabis company, brand, investor, or advocacy organization. There are no exceptions, and there is no amount small enough to be fine.
- Sponsored content, when we run it, is labeled clearly and cannot be mistaken for news. Sponsors receive no influence over editorial coverage, no preview of stories about them, and no immunity from them.
- Advertisers buy space, not treatment. The revenue side of the publication has no vote in what the newsroom covers or concludes, an arrangement described in full on our ownership and funding page.
- Product coverage cannot be bought. We do not run pay-for-review, and free samples create no obligation; where a sample was provided, the article says so.
- Team members do not trade securities of companies we cover in ways that conflict with the coverage, and anyone with a personal interest in a story’s subject is recused from it.
Sourcing
- Primary documents outrank statements about documents. We read the bill, the filing, the ruling, the paper.
- Claims are attributed, and readers can see where facts came from. Anonymous sourcing is used only where the information matters and the source faces real risk, a bar that cannabis coverage meets more often than most beats, since sources may face professional or legal exposure merely for speaking about this subject. When we grant anonymity, we know the identity, we verify the basis of knowledge, and we protect the source without exception.
- Subjects of critical reporting get a genuine chance to respond before publication, with enough time and specificity to answer.
Language and framing
We write about cannabis the way a careful publication writes about any regulated substance: plainly. We avoid both the winking slang that treats the subject as a joke and the drug-panic vocabulary that treats every development as menace. People who use cannabis are described without stigma; claims made for cannabis are examined without deference. Patients, in particular, are covered as patients, with the privacy and dignity that implies.
Legal responsibility in coverage
Because our readership spans jurisdictions with opposite laws, we take care that reporting is not mistaken for instruction. We describe markets, products, and practices as facts about the world; we do not publish guidance designed to help readers break the law of their jurisdiction, and our disclaimer governs how all coverage should be read.
Artificial intelligence and automation
Where software tools assist with research or production, responsibility remains entirely human. Nothing is published without editorial review, verification stays anchored to primary sources, and accountability for every published word rests with the masthead, never with a tool.
Accountability
These standards are published so readers can enforce them. If you believe a story, a label, or a commercial arrangement on this site has violated this page, write to support@timesofcannabis.com and say so plainly. The complaint will be reviewed by someone with authority over the coverage in question, and if you are right, the fix will be visible.
