Editorial Standards

Tapestry News is a perspectives publication. We take the stories shaping your world and break them down into the genuinely different camps — who believes what, and why. Every article follows the same structure: background facts, then labeled perspective sections where each camp makes its best case.

That format comes with a responsibility. If we're going to present what people actually believe, we have to get it right. Here's how we do that.

How We Research

Every article starts with research, not writing. Before a single sentence is drafted, we collect a minimum of eight published sources with verifiable URLs. We go beyond news coverage: we actively seek technical papers, working papers (NBER, SSRN), institute reports (Brookings, PIIE, AEI, CATO, BIS, IMF, CBO), white papers, congressional testimony, and academic publications. When a news article cites a study, we find and read the original.

For every perspective section, we require at least one named person or organization on the record making that specific argument. We do not construct perspectives from inference alone. If no one is publicly making an argument, it does not appear in our coverage — no matter how logical it seems.

How We Verify

Every claim in every article goes through a multi-step verification process before publication.

Fact sheet first. All verified facts, source URLs, and key quotes are compiled into a structured fact sheet before drafting begins. Every claim in the draft must trace back to a specific sentence in a specific published source.

Claim-level review. After drafting, we review every individual claim against its source. We check exact numbers, names, dates, titles, quotes, and institutional affiliations. We verify that relationships and connections described are real and sourced. We confirm timelines against published reporting.

Perspective sourcing. For every perspective section, we confirm that a named person or organization is on the record making that specific argument. We verify the source URL appears in the article's sources list. Generic camps like "Skeptics" or "Pragmatists" without named advocates do not meet our standard.

Fresh-eyes pass. The entire article is re-read as if for the first time. Does every sentence parse clearly? Does the article's premise hold? Are there redundancies, unsourced claims, or sentences that collapse under scrutiny?

What We Require in Every Article

  • A background section with facts only — no opinion, no framing, no perspective preview
  • At least two labeled perspective sections, each attributed to named people or organizations
  • A conclusion summarizing where each camp stands and the open question, without editorializing
  • A full sources list at the end with URLs for every cited source
  • A subtitle that accurately represents the article's scope

What We Don't Do

  • We don't use anonymous or generic perspective camps. Every perspective needs a named advocate.
  • We don't present paraphrases as direct quotes.
  • We don't include claims we cannot verify against a published source. If we can't source it, we cut it.
  • We don't editorialize in background sections or conclusions.
  • We don't use feature images. Our site is text-first by design.

Our Sources

We draw from a wide range of published sources across the political and ideological spectrum. These include major newspapers, wire services, policy institutes, academic journals, government reports, think tanks, trade publications, and — where appropriate for representing public sentiment — community forums and social media posts from identifiable accounts.

We cite sources at the end of every article rather than inline, so readers can review the full source list and assess our sourcing for themselves.

Questions or Feedback

If you spot an error, disagree with how we've characterized a perspective, or have a source we should consider, email us. We take corrections seriously — see our Corrections Policy for how we handle them.