Professional Reporting Guidelines for KFF Staff and Freelance Journalists:
The guidelines outlined here apply to all editorial employees and freelancers and to the journalism they produce for KFF, whether it appears in print, online, on social media, on radio or television, or on any other platform. KFF’s journalists must also adhere to KFF’s standards and practices. KFF journalists who accept invitations to appear on other outlets or in other media forums should be mindful that their remarks require the same care, discretion, and neutrality as their published reports.
When uncertainty arises about the application of these guidelines or KFF’s standards and practices, the primary goal always should be to protect KFF’s integrity. When in doubt, do not be shy about asking questions or raising issues with your supervisors. A robust, continuing discussion of ethics at all levels is essential to producing first‐rate journalism.
Content
Fairness
A fair‐minded reader of KFF Health News coverage should not be able to discern the private opinions of those who contributed to that coverage, or to infer that the organization is promoting any agenda. A crucial goal of our news reporting — apart from editorials, columns, criticism, cartoons, and other content that is expressly opinionated — is to be non‐ideological. This is a tall order. It requires us to recognize our biases and stand apart from them, including in social settings and in our own statements made on social media. It also requires us to examine the ideological environment in which we work, given that the biases of our sources, our colleagues, and our communities can distort our sense of objectivity.
In covering contentious matters — abortion, gun control, politics, and the like — we seek out intelligent, articulate views from all perspectives. Reporters should try genuinely to understand all points of view, rather than simply grab quick quotations to create a semblance of balance.
People who will be shown in an adverse light must be given a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. This means making a good‐faith effort to give the subject of allegations or criticism sufficient time and information to respond substantively.
Investigative reporting requires special diligence with respect to fairness. Those involved in such work should bear in mind that they are more credible when they provide a rich, nuanced account of the topic. Our coverage should avoid simplistic portrayals.
Generative artificial intelligence tools such as large language models may never be used to write, record or edit digital or broadcast stories, or to create or edit images and other published art. The use of AI may be permissible – or even unavoidable – in reporting, as commonly used tools such as Google, Facebook and other internet search and social media platforms incorporate the technology into their services. KFF journalists should treat any information gathered with the assistance of AI with particular care, mindful of the potential for error and outright harm to readers and to KFF’s reputation. Use of AI should be disclosed and discussed with the relevant editor or supervisor.
Sources
We report in environments — Washington, D.C., for instance — where anonymity is routinely sought and casually granted. We stand against that practice and seek to minimize it. We are committed to informing readers as completely as possible; the use of anonymous sources compromises this important value.
These standards are not intended to discourage reporters from cultivating sources who are wary of publicity. Such informants can be invaluable. But the information they provide can often be verified with sources willing to be named, from documents, or both. We should make efforts to obtain such verification. Relying on unnamed sources should be a last resort, subject to the following guidelines:
- When we use anonymous sources, it should be to convey important information to our readers. We should not use such sources to publish material that is trivial, obvious, or self‐serving.
- Sources should never be permitted to use the shield of anonymity to voice speculation or to make ad hominem attacks.
- Reporters, early on, should consult with their editors on the practice and use of anonymity.
- When it is practical, a reporter should consult an editor before entering into an agreement to protect a source’s anonymity. An editor should know the source’s identity to evaluate the reliability of the information provided.
- An unnamed source should have a compelling reason for insisting on anonymity, such as fear of retaliation or concern about privacy, and we should state those reasons when they are relevant to what we publish.
- The reporter and editor must be satisfied that the source has a sound factual basis for his or her assertions. Some sources quoted anonymously might tend to exaggerate or overreach precisely because they will not be named.
- We should identify sources as completely as possible, consistent with the promise of anonymity. In particular, a source’s point of view and potential biases should be disclosed as fully as possible. For instance, “an adviser to Democratic members of the House Committee on Ways and Means” is preferable to “a congressional source.”
- The possibility exists that a prosecutor, grand jury or judge will demand to know a source’s identity, forcing the reporter to choose between unmasking the source and going to jail for contempt of court. Such situations are rare, and they should not deter us from investigating sensitive or contentious matters.
- Reporters should be extremely circumspect about how and where they store and use information that might identify an anonymous source. Many electronic records, including email, can be subpoenaed from and retrieved by non‐newsroom employees.
- Promises to a source must be kept except under the most extraordinary circumstances. If a source, acting in bad faith, were to succeed in using KFF Health News to spread misinformation, we would make clear to the source that our promise of anonymity is no longer binding. That said, we do not “burn” sources.
- When it is appropriate, reporters should identify the way in which the information was collected — by means of an interview, news release, email, social media post, or a user comment. Comments gleaned from social media or on a website should be identified as such and every effort should be made to reach and confirm an attribution as part of the newsgathering process.
Access
KFF does not enter into nondisclosure agreements or make deals in exchange for access. When negotiating with publicists, for instance, we do not make promises regarding publication, placement, or angle of approach. It is permissible to discuss, in general terms, the scope and direction of the coverage we have in mind. It should be clear, however, that the ultimate placement and angle are for reporters and editors to decide. This practice does not prohibit us from agreeing to delay publication of information provided under embargo.
KFF does not pay sources for information.
Precision
We live and work in a media environment suffused with hyperbole. It is our intention to stand distinctly apart from that world and speak straightforwardly to readers.
Fabrication of any type is unacceptable. We do not create composite characters. As a practice, we do not use pseudonyms. In extremely rare cases, the editor‐in‐chief can approve their use. We do not exaggerate sourcing (a single source is a “source,” not “sources”). We do not manufacture, embroider, or distort quotes, whether in text or in the video and audio clips posted on our website.
Superlatives such as “biggest,” “worst,” and “most” should be employed only when the writer has proof. It is the responsibility of assigning editors and copy editors to challenge all questionable claims. The burden of proof rests with the writer; it is not the copy desk’s responsibility to prove the writer wrong.
It is unacceptable to hedge an unverified or unverifiable assertion with words such as “arguably” or “perhaps.” Our job is to report what is true, not what might be. Datelines are statements of fact and are intended to show where a story or other work was principally reported. Visiting an area fleetingly solely to justify a dateline is not acceptable.
We do not distribute articles outside the newsroom before publication. In the event you would like to read back quotations or selected passages to a source to ensure accuracy, consult an editor before doing so. Bear in mind that it is not a substitute for basic fact-checking, such as reviewing interview notes or public records.
Do not agree to interviews subject to editorial restrictions such as “quote approval” by sources.
In divulging unpublished material, we never cede editorial discretion to any outside party. The decision whether and how to revise an article rests with the reporter and his or her editors. Make certain this is understood by anyone to whom you intend to reveal unpublished material.
Context will sometimes guide the application of these guidelines on precision. There are instances when hyperbole or sarcasm may be used for comic or literary effect. Columnists may use those devices to make a point, as may cartoonists. Such techniques should be employed with care.
First‐person columns are a way to share personal experiences with KFF Health News readers that elucidate problems or issues within the health care system.
Of all the different types of reporting, articles based on data analysis are unusually subject to misinterpretation and distortion. Given that, special attention and precaution are warranted when reporting on or reviewing articles that rely heavily on data. Sources for the data should be clear and interpretation of data should be double‐checked by reporters and relevant editors, including KFF Health News’ data editor, who should always be consulted on any story based on data analysis. Leading experts in the field who work with the data regularly should be consulted as appropriate, including KFF colleagues with relevant expertise. The article should describe the method of analysis used and, where possible, link to the original data sets so readers can duplicate the analysis themselves.
Reporters and editors should take special care with articles that rely on survey or polling data to make sure the conclusions and insights drawn are valid. They should consider who paid for data collection, as well as the methods employed for both data collection and analysis. Surveys produced by organizations that have joined the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)’s Transparency Initiative generally provide all information needed to make these judgments.
Credit
We conduct our own reporting, but when we rely on the work of others, we credit them. A link in the story — by itself — may not be sufficient credit. When we aggregate content, including when wire reports are used, we should clearly and prominently attribute the source in the narrative.
Attribution is essential to building reader trust. Care should be taken to cross-check facts.
Conduct
In general, we identify ourselves as journalists when covering news events. There are some instances when offering such identification is impossible, impractical, or counterproductive, but in no case should a staff member lie about his or her affiliation with KFF Health News. We should deal honorably with people and institutions we cover, just as we expect them to deal honorably with us. Journalists may not use their affiliation with KFF Health News to resolve personal disputes or seek special treatment or personal benefits.
To guard against using what could be considered insider knowledge, as well as for competitive reasons, staff members are prohibited from sharing potentially market‐sensitive information about upcoming stories — including possible run dates — with anyone. This includes friends, family members, significant others, readers, and sources.
Staff members should refrain from providing any financial guidance to readers and sources.
Corrections and Clarifications
When we make mistakes, we quickly and forthrightly correct the record. Readers and staff members who bring mistakes to our attention deserve our gratitude.
A staff member who receives a complaint about the accuracy of our work should inform an editor. No staff member should decide on his or her own that a complaint does not warrant a correction.
Photos and Graphics
Photographs and graphics must inform, not mislead. Any attempt to confuse readers or misrepresent visual information is prohibited.
In photographing news, we do not stage or reenact events. Photographers may direct subjects of portraits or studio work. In presenting such images, we must avoid creating the impression that they were captured spontaneously.
We do not add color, create photo montages, remove objects, or flip images. We do not digitally alter images beyond making minor adjustments for color correction, exposure correction, and removal of dust spots or scratches required to ensure faithful reproduction of the original image. We do not permit the exaggerated use of burning, dodging, or color saturation or the use of photo-editing app filters or AI tools to manipulate images for publication.
On occasion, we publish artistic or graphic renderings that include altered photographs. Such renderings should be clearly labeled “photo illustration.” Before creating a photo illustration, photographers, photo editors, and designers must obtain approval from the Executive Editor or Publisher.
Complex graphic illustrations should be similarly labeled.
Editors must verify the authenticity of handout photos and that any necessary permission has been obtained for KFF use. Except in rare instances, credit lines must identify the source of such photographs.
Video and Audio
The use of electronic media creates challenges that may, on occasion, require staff members to apply the principles embodied in these guidelines in new ways.
To cite one possible example: Journalists should understand that a person who consents to a tape‐recorded interview may not want the recording made available online. Regardless of employee’s state of residence or location, KFF adheres to California law regarding the use of recorded communications: all parties taking part in the recording must consent.
In general, video is governed by the same ethical practices as still photography (see above). Distortion of any type is improper. In editing video, do not insert words or splice together statements made at different times to suggest that they were uttered at the same time; excerpts of an interview or address generally should be presented in the order in which they occurred. If an interview is presented in question‐and‐answer format, the questions must be presented as they were asked. Reaction shots may not be altered after the fact and should be shot in the presence of the interview subject whenever possible. Staging is discouraged and should be used only when essential as b‐roll or for setting a scene.
Video, images, or graphics obtained from outside sources must be clearly identified.
Freelancers Working for KFF Health News
The work of freelance journalists appears in our publications alongside staff‐produced content. Freelancers must therefore approach their work without conflicts and must adhere to the same standards of professionalism that KFF Health News requires of its staff, including these guidelines. It is the responsibility of assigning editors to inquire about a freelancer’s potential conflicts of interest before making an assignment. To help eliminate questions about freelancers, editors should request CVs or résumés from writers or photographers, and there should be an online search by that assigning editor of major news sites and social media sites to assess the freelancer.”
