Front Page › Editorial Standards & Transparency

Editorial Standards & Transparency

Connecticut CannaTimes is an independent investigative news publication covering Connecticut cannabis policy, enforcement, regulation, legislation, public spending and government accountability. It is published anonymously by its Editorial Staff and Contributing Writers. These are the rules the publication works to, written down so readers can hold it to them. Because bylines are institutional rather than personal, the work has to stand on the records it cites.

A fair question about any new independent publication is whether it is actual investigative journalism or whether someone simply asked an AI to generate articles. For us, the answer is in the records. The investigation produces the evidence. AI helps process and present it. Human editorial review is responsible for what we publish.

Original investigative research

Our reporting is built through real-world work that cannot be replaced by asking a chatbot to write an article. That work includes:

• Preparing and submitting Freedom of Information Act requests.
• Obtaining and reviewing agency correspondence and public records.
• Communicating directly with government agencies, attorneys, public officials and knowledgeable sources.
• Conducting interviews, telephone conversations and correspondence.
• Researching statutes, regulations, legislative histories and court proceedings.
• Examining original court filings, laboratory reports, contracts, enforcement actions and financial records.
• Comparing government statements against documented evidence, and investigating the inconsistencies.

Where publication is appropriate, the supporting records are posted in our public document repository so readers can examine them directly.

How we use AI

AI is an assisting technology here, not a substitute for reporting. It may help organize, summarize, cross-reference and analyze large bodies of documents, and help prepare material for publication.

• AI does not independently perform our real-world reporting, develop source relationships, conduct our communications, or substitute for the human judgment responsible for publication.
• AI-generated interpretations are not automatically treated as facts. They are checked against the underlying records.
• AI does not alter quotations, documentary facts, numerical findings or the intended meaning of our reporting.
• The use of AI does not, by itself, make an investigation "AI-generated." The evidence comes from the investigation.

Writing style and contributor privacy

We also use AI-assisted editing to maintain a consistent publication voice. One effect of a consistent voice is that it can reduce recognizable differences in how individual contributors write.

Distinctive punctuation, sentence construction, vocabulary and other linguistic habits can sometimes help identify an author. Standardizing editorial language can reduce some of those identifiable patterns. We are precise about what this does and does not do: it may reduce identifiable stylistic features, but it is a privacy precaution, not a guarantee of anonymity, and it does not eliminate all forms of authorship attribution. Human editorial review remains part of the process.

Why contributor privacy matters

Our investigations examine public institutions, government actions, regulatory decisions, law enforcement and powerful commercial interests. Reporting of that kind can carry real risks for the people who do it and for sources: retaliation, harassment, legal pressure, professional consequences and threats to personal privacy.

We therefore maintain strict confidentiality about editorial and contributor identities. This is a deliberate journalistic safeguard. It protects the people involved; it does not reduce our responsibility to substantiate what we report. Accountability here comes through verifiable reporting, transparent methods, original documents, a corrections process, and the ability to challenge what we publish.

Human review and accountability

Every published article and its supporting sources are reviewed by human eyes before publication. Facts, quotations, statistics, legal references and investigative conclusions remain subject to editorial examination. Where appropriate, reporting distinguishes verified facts, allegations, analysis and matters that remain uncertain.

Labels

• News reports what happened and what the records show. It does not carry the publication's opinion.
• Analysis interprets reported facts and explains what they mean. It is labeled so the interpretation is not mistaken for a finding of fact.
• Opinion states the publication's position, including calls to action and advocacy. Reader-submitted op-eds are labeled Opinion and say who wrote them.
• Investigation marks original reporting built on records or data the publication compiled itself. It is a label on top of News or Analysis, not a substitute for it.
• A story is not labeled Opinion because it criticizes an agency or official. The label follows what the piece does: report, interpret, or argue.

Sourcing

• Claims of fact are tied to a document, a public record, an on-the-record statement, or direct observation. Articles list their sources; where a record is in our archive, the story links to it.
• Quotations from documents are verbatim. Paraphrases are identified as such.
• We distinguish what a record shows from what we conclude from it.
• Stories first published on Facebook, before this site existed, were written to the standards of that time and may list fewer sources. They are marked as migrated at the foot of the article.

What we verify, and what we do not

• We verify documents against their official source where one exists: the Judicial Branch case look-up, the General Assembly's bill records, data.ct.gov, agency FOIA productions.
• Police announcements, agency press releases and other outlets' reporting are attributed to their source. Reporting them is not independent confirmation that they are accurate.
• Statements by people we quote are their statements. We do not vouch for them.
• Data analyses say how the data was assembled and what it leaves out.
• We do not claim that a particular article, quotation or source was independently corroborated unless that verification was actually performed.

The evidence repository

Whenever it is lawful, practical and consistent with protecting our sources, we make relevant original records available for public examination in our document repository. That can include FOIA responses, agency communications, court filings, legislative records, laboratory documents, contracts and other investigative source materials.

We do not publish confidential source records, private identifying information, or unpublished investigative material simply because it exists. Readers are encouraged to examine the underlying evidence rather than relying only on our summaries.

Requests for comment

People and organizations named in a story in a way that could reflect on them are given a chance to respond before publication where that is possible. Responses received after publication are added to the story. Anyone named in a story can request to respond.

Dates and updates

• The publication date on an article is the date the story was first published, including on our Facebook page.
• When a story is substantively changed after publication, an "Updated" date appears beside the publication date and an update note explains what changed.
• We do not re-date old stories to make them look new.

Corrections

Errors of fact are corrected in the article, noted at the top of the article with the date, and listed on the corrections page. The original story stays published. See that page for what counts as a correction, a clarification and an update.

Naming people

People who hold public office, hold or seek state licenses, lobby, litigate, or otherwise act in the matters we cover are named. We do not publish private information about private individuals, and we do not name people solely because they follow or interact with our pages.

Confidential information

We do not reveal sources who ask not to be named. Material sent through the contact form goes to a private inbox and is not published or shared. That form is an ordinary web form, not an encrypted drop; its limits are explained on the form.

The limits of our protections

We try to be honest about what anonymity and confidentiality can and cannot do. AI-assisted editing and other technology can reduce, but cannot guarantee, the anonymity of a contributor. Our contact form is not a secure or anonymous channel on its own. We do not describe internal security procedures, and nothing here should be read as a promise that any communication is untraceable. Where confidentiality genuinely matters, the safest step is still to limit what identifying detail is shared in the first place.

Third-party reporting

When we share another outlet's work we credit it and link to it. We do not republish another outlet's article in full.

Anonymous publication

Connecticut CannaTimes publishes anonymously. Bylines use institutional identifiers only: Connecticut CannaTimes, The Editor, Editorial Staff, and Contributing Writer. The publication does not publish author profiles or personal information about anyone associated with it, and does not confirm or deny any individual's involvement. Anonymity does not lower the standard of proof; it raises it, which is why every story points to the records behind it.

Independence

No advertising, sponsorship, or payment from any cannabis business, lobbyist, law firm, or public official.

Protect the people. Preserve the evidence. Let readers decide.

See also: About · Corrections · Contact · Privacy