Skip to main content
Skip to content
Standards

Editorial Standards

This page explains how Epstein Exposed approaches reporting, sourcing, review, and corrections. The goal is simple: make public-record investigations more transparent, more attributable, and easier for readers and journalists to verify.

Core Principles

Evidence First

Our reporting is built from public records: court filings, government releases, sworn testimony, exhibits, and other documentary sources. We do not publish factual assertions as reported findings unless they are tied to source material.

Attribution Matters

Major claims should be attributable to specific documents, proceedings, or clearly identified reporting. Where a claim is based on allegations, we label it as an allegation. Where a finding is an inference, we describe it as analysis rather than established fact.

Human Editorial Responsibility

Published articles are released under a named byline and remain the responsibility of a human editor. Research systems may assist with gathering, sorting, or drafting material, but publication decisions and final wording are editorial judgments.

Corrections Over Defensiveness

When we find or are shown a material error, we correct it. Substantive corrections and clarifications should be reflected in article updates rather than silently changed where practical.

Publication Workflow

  1. 1Source documents are gathered from public records and cross-checked against the archive.
  2. 2Draft reporting is reviewed for attribution, legal risk, and whether allegations are clearly labeled.
  3. 3A named editor approves publication before the article is released.
  4. 4Post-publication issues, source disputes, and documented corrections are reviewed through the site support channel.

Corrections Policy

We welcome documented corrections. If a reader identifies a factual error, a missing source qualification, or a misleading characterization, we review that challenge against the underlying record. Material corrections should be reflected in the article's visible update history.

For supporting methodology, see Sourcing Methodology. For media context, see the Press Kit.

Style & Attribution Rules

  • State what the record shows before offering analysis.
  • Separate allegations, testimony, and documentary findings clearly.
  • Avoid loaded or conclusory phrasing that outruns the record.
  • Use precise dates, document references, and procedural context where relevant.
  • Do not imply guilt from mere presence in records, contact lists, or flight manifests.

Case Commentary Archive

The Case Commentary Archive is structurally separate from the main persons database. It documents individuals who have publicly commented on or advocated positions regarding the Epstein and Maxwell cases but do not appear in DOJ case files.

Different sourcing standard: Main database entries require at least one DOJ document reference. Commentary entries require at least two credible published sources from recognized news organizations (e.g., The Daily Beast, The New York Times, The Guardian, Reuters).

  • Social media posts and Reddit threads are not sufficient sourcing for commentary entries
  • All tags use neutral, descriptive language describing documented actions, not character judgments
  • Additions are made by site administrators only, following the same editorial review as the main database
  • Commentary subjects may request corrections or removal through our legal page

Bylines & Ownership

Investigative reporting on this site is published under the byline Eric Keller, a pseudonym used for privacy and personal safety. The use of a pseudonym does not reduce the site's editorial responsibility for what is published.