Last updated: July 14, 2026
Anyone can publish anything now. That’s mostly a good thing — it broke a gatekeeping system that badly needed breaking. But it also means the burden has shifted onto readers to work out who’s worth trusting, usually with very little to go on.
This page is our attempt to make that easier. It sets out how PressDeep decides what to publish, where our information comes from, what we do when we get something wrong, and the lines we won’t cross. Hold us to it. If we fall short of anything written here, we want to hear about it.
Our Standards
Accuracy comes before speed. The incentive in modern publishing is to be first, and it has done real damage to the profession. We’d rather be an hour late and correct. A story that’s wrong isn’t a story — it’s noise with a headline attached.
Every significant claim is sourced. If we tell you something happened, we can point to why we believe it. Primary documents wherever possible: filings, transcripts, data, court records, the actual text of the thing being argued about. Secondary reporting is credited to whoever did the work.
We show our reasoning. Analysis pieces make arguments, and arguments can be wrong. So we lay out the evidence and the logic rather than asking you to trust the conclusion. If you read a PressDeep analysis and disagree with us, you should at least be able to see exactly where you and we part ways.
We separate reporting from opinion. News and Deep Dives report what we found. Analysis interprets it. These are labeled differently and written differently, and we don’t let one quietly become the other.
We write for the intelligent non-specialist. Jargon is a way of hiding. If a subject requires technical language, we explain the language.
Sourcing
Named sources are the default. Information carries more weight when someone puts their name behind it, and readers deserve to know who’s talking.
Anonymity is granted, not assumed. We’ll protect a source’s identity when there is a real risk to them — their job, their safety, their legal position — and when the information genuinely matters. We won’t grant it so someone can take a free shot at a rival, float a trial balloon, or spin a story without consequences.
When we use an anonymous source, we tell you what we can. Not their name, but why they’d know: their proximity to the events, and why they’re speaking anonymously. “A person familiar with the matter” is doing very little work for you as a reader. We try to do better.
We seek confirmation. Significant claims from a single anonymous source are corroborated with documents or additional sourcing before publication. If we can’t corroborate something and still think it’s important enough to publish, we say plainly that it’s uncorroborated.
Sources who lie to us lose their anonymity protection. That’s understood upfront.
Fact-Checking
Before anything goes live, we check that:
- Every factual claim traces back to a source we can identify
- Names, titles, dates, figures, and quotes are correct
- Quotes accurately reflect what was said, in the context it was said
- Numbers are checked against the original data, not against someone else’s summary of it
- Anyone facing a serious allegation in the piece has been given a genuine opportunity to respond
Right of reply is not a formality. If we’re going to say something damaging about a person or organization, we contact them, explain what we intend to publish, and give them a real chance to answer. If they decline, we say so. If they respond, we include it fairly.
Corrections
We will get things wrong. Every publication does. What separates the honest ones from the rest is what happens next.
Corrections are visible. When we correct a factual error, we say so on the page — what was wrong, what’s right, and when we fixed it. We don’t quietly edit the text and hope nobody noticed. Silent editing is a form of lying.
Minor fixes — a typo, a broken link, a formatting error — are made without a note, because nobody needs a public announcement about a misplaced comma.
Substantive errors — a wrong fact, a misattributed quote, a number that changes the meaning of a story — get a dated correction notice on the article.
Serious errors — where the central claim of a piece turns out to be wrong — get a correction at the top of the article, a clear explanation of what went wrong, and, where appropriate, a standalone piece explaining it.
Retraction is reserved for stories that shouldn’t have run at all. If we ever have to do it, we’ll explain why in public.
To report an error: email contact@buytextlinks.com. Include the article and what you believe is wrong. We take these seriously and we don’t get defensive about them.
Independence and Conflicts of Interest
No one buys coverage. Advertisers, sponsors, and affiliate partners have no influence over what we cover or what we conclude. They don’t see stories before publication, they don’t get warnings, and they don’t get to object.
Sponsored content is labeled as sponsored. Clearly, unmissably, at the top. If it’s paid for, you’ll know before you read a word of it.
Affiliate links are disclosed. Where we earn a commission on a link, we say so on the page. A commission never determines a recommendation. If a product is bad, we say it’s bad.
We disclose our conflicts. If a writer has a financial interest, a personal relationship, or any other stake in something we’re covering, it’s disclosed in the piece — or that person doesn’t write the piece.
We don’t take gifts, trips, or favors from the people and organizations we cover.
Use of AI
We think readers deserve honesty about this, since a lot of publishers are currently being evasive.
AI tools may assist with research, transcription, data processing, and copyediting. They are useful for exactly these things.
No article on PressDeep is AI-generated and published as human work. Every piece is reported, written, judged, and signed off by a person who is accountable for it. Facts produced with AI assistance are verified against original sources, the same as anything else — because these tools are confidently wrong often enough that trusting them unverified would be professional negligence.
If we ever publish something substantially generated by AI, we’ll say so on the piece.
Plagiarism and Attribution
Plagiarism is a firing offense. No exceptions, no second chances.
We credit other people’s work. If another outlet broke a story and we’re building on it, we say so and link to them. Reporting is hard and expensive, and the people who do it deserve the credit and the traffic. Aggregating someone else’s work without attribution is theft, whatever the industry has normalized.
Quotations are exact. We don’t clean up, tighten, or improve what someone said. Where a quote is trimmed for length, the meaning is preserved and the cut is marked.
Comments and Community
Comments are open because disagreement makes the work better. Some of our best corrections have come from readers who knew more than we did.
We remove comments that are harassing, threatening, hateful, spam, or deliberately deceptive. We don’t remove comments for disagreeing with us, criticizing our work, or being blunt about it. Those are the ones worth having.
Who Is Accountable
PressDeep is responsible for everything published under its name. When something goes wrong here, it’s our fault — not a contractor’s, not a tool’s, not an algorithm’s.
Questions, complaints, corrections, and tips:
Email: contact@buytextlinks.com
Website: pressdeep.com
We read all of it.
— The PressDeep Team