Editorial Policy
We do not bend facts for the sake of empathy. Nor, for the sake of even-handedness, do we give equal weight to claims that differ in the strength of their evidence. To hold both of these at once, we are publishing the procedures we follow.
Our editorial values
This outlet does not stand with Russia; it stands with Ukraine. This position shows itself not in what we treat as fact, but in what we refuse to place side by side with equal weight. We apply the same standards of fact, sourcing, and correction to information from the Ukrainian side and the Russian side alike.
We treat a person’s dignity, safety, and respect for sovereignty and human rights as editorial values. We keep those values separate from whether we support or oppose any particular policy or business. We also subject Ukraine’s own government, local authorities, companies, and support organizations to scrutiny where necessary. We do not treat Russian speakers or people from Russia as enemies as a category.
We display reporting, explainers, opinion, and advertising in forms readers can tell apart.
What we cover, and what we don’t
Every article is assigned one of the following five categories as its primary category. How much we write in each field is decided by public relevance, not by a fixed ratio. As of September 2026, we have fewer articles in “Culture & History” than in the other areas, and we are prioritizing it for growth.
| Category | Scope and boundaries |
|---|---|
| Culture & History | Food, language, film, literature, crafts, history. We distinguish the country of production, subject matter, and period of works. Written for cultural understanding, not to promote travel. |
| People & Life | Interviews with those directly affected, education, communities, work, and the diaspora. We do not lock people into a fixed image of victim or hero alone. |
| Understanding Society | Institutions, economic data, politics, the background to the war, and fact-checking misinformation. We do not cover comprehensive breaking news or live developments in the fighting. |
| Business & Recovery | Industry, companies, talent, and cases of recovery and reconstruction. We present achievements and constraints side by side, and keep this distinct from investment solicitation or corporate advertising. |
| Connections with Japan | Cultural exchange, the Ukrainian community in Japan, life in Japan, and joint research. We also report on the Japanese side’s experience. |
Stories we do not run
- Rankings of appearance or national character
- Roundup articles that are nothing but reposts
- Headlines designed to stoke fear or anger
- Articles that consume the war as a game of winners and losers
- Unfounded guarantees of success
- Fundraising or recruitment appeals we have not vetted
- Generic hiring or development articles that cannot explain their connection to Ukraine
Sourcing and verification
We prioritize official statistics, laws, primary sources, on-the-ground reporting, and research. That said, we do not treat a primary source as truth simply because it is primary. A statement from a government or military is a source for “the fact that this statement was made,” not evidence that its claimed results or damage figures have been independently confirmed. We apply the same standard to a company’s own account of itself. We treat social media as a lead for reporting, and we do not count a repost, or an article carried by the same wire service, as a separate, independent piece of corroboration.
| Type of claim | Condition for publication |
|---|---|
| A simple, publicly stated fact | An appropriate primary source may be enough on its own (for example, an already-announced event schedule). We check whether it is current and who published it. |
| A significant, contested claim | In principle, we require two or more independent lines of corroboration and an opportunity for rebuttal. If this cannot be met, we do not state it as settled; we either present it as an attributed claim (“so-and-so asserts”), or we hold publication. |
| Anonymous information | The editor in charge verifies the source’s identity and connection to the matter, and records the reason for anonymity and any conflict of interest. We do not run anonymous personal attacks or baseless rumors. |
| Figures and comparisons | We check the period, the population, the unit, the currency, whether it is nominal or real, whether it is an estimate or a confirmed figure, and the exchange-rate reference date. We do not conflate a cumulative total with a single year’s figure, or a number of people with a number of cases. |
| Video and images | We check the original post, the photographer, when it was taken, and its history of prior use. We verify location for the sake of corroboration, not as a reason to publish dangerous location information. |
We check every significant figure, quotation, and proper noun. We do not quote a summary of search results alone; we open the original page and confirm it ourselves.
Conventions for writing about Ukraine
For place names, we start from the current Ukrainian-language name. We give the older Japanese form alongside it, at first mention only, when it is needed for search or historical understanding.
| Japanese | English | Українська |
|---|---|---|
| キーウ | Kyiv | Київ |
| オデーサ | Odesa | Одеса |
| ハルキウ | Kharkiv | Харків |
| リヴィウ | Lviv | Львів |
| ドニプロ | Dnipro | Дніпро |
| チョルノービリ | Chornobyl | Чорнобиль |
For personal names, we prioritize the form the person themselves uses officially or professionally. We do not infer a person’s native language or nationality from appearance.
How we write about the war, territory, and history
- We describe the events of February 2022 specifically as “Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,” and we do not conflate it with the events dating back to 2014. The UN General Assembly, too, in Resolution ES-11/1 of March 2, 2022, called this an “aggression” by Russia against Ukraine, in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
- We treat the internationally recognized borders as Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and the four regions Russia has declared annexed. The UN General Assembly has held that the “referendum” held on March 16, 2014 in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol has no validity (Resolution 68/262, March 27, 2014), and that the so-called “referendums” held September 23-27, 2022 in parts of the four regions, and the subsequent attempt at illegal annexation, have no validity under international law (Resolution ES-11/4, October 12, 2022).
- We do not substitute the baseless phrase “a conflict between two sides.” At the same time, we confirm responsibility for individual incidents through evidence.
- In maps, we distinguish borders from lines of actual control, and give the date of creation, source, and a legend.
- For matters such as war crimes, we separate allegation, a finding by an investigative body, indictment, and a court’s ruling, and make clear whose assessment it is.
- We do not use “refugee,” “internally displaced person,” “evacuee,” and “migrant” interchangeably. When legal status is unclear, we describe the confirmable situation instead.
- We do not make assumptions such as “a Russian speaker is pro-Russian.”
We present both sides of an issue only where a real scholarly dispute exists (for example, a range of estimates for a death toll, or differing interpretations of historical sources). We do not place the aggressor’s political claims or historical views (such as the “one nation” theory, or arguments justifying annexation) alongside the Ukrainian position with equal weight, as though it were simply “the other side.” When we introduce such a claim, we show who said it, when, and where, and write it as the fact that “Russia asserts this,” adding an assessment measured against confirmable facts and, where relevant, UN General Assembly resolutions.
Safety of interview subjects and reporters
We do not treat consent as a box to check. Before an interview, we explain the outlet’s name, the languages it will be published in, the extent of publication, how photographs and real names will be handled, and the possibility of it being reshared through search or social media. We explain the subject’s right to decline a question they don’t want to answer, their right to stop the interview, and how to raise a safety concern before publication.
Checking a quotation with the subject is done to confirm meaning, fact, and safety. It does not give them authority to delete criticism. We cannot promise full retraction after publication.
- Children — In addition to age-appropriate consent from the child and consent from a guardian, we separately assess safety. We do not publish even with consent if it would be dangerous. We also check whether the child could be re-identified through their school, family, or background details visible in the frame.
- Those who have experienced harm or loss — We do not ask subjects to re-enact a painful experience or press them for an emotional reaction. We provide breaks and the chance to withdraw. We do not make our cooperation conditional on whether support has been provided.
- Military, critical facilities, evacuation sites — We do not disclose the location, movement, exact filming location, operating hours, or identifying details of an unannounced unit. Even for already-published information, we reassess the danger of it being reshared.
- Reporters and fixers on the ground — We guarantee their right to decline an assignment and their right to withdraw. We agree in advance on risk assessment, emergency contacts, insurance coverage, costs, and pay. We do not send anyone to the front line without a safety framework in place.
Corrections and updates
We distinguish between a correction and an update. We do not simply change the update date to appear current without first reviewing the body of the article.
| Situation | Response |
|---|---|
| A safety or personal-information issue | As soon as we become aware, we immediately stop displaying the relevant section and any images, and notify the editor in chief. We do not repeat dangerous information in a correction notice. |
| An error in a significant fact | We begin verification and, in principle, correct it within one business day, or mark it as “under review.” We record in the article what was wrong and how it was fixed. |
| A typo or formatting issue | A fix that doesn’t change meaning is logged in our internal history. A change involving a name, a figure, or a quotation is never treated as a minor fix. |
| A later change in circumstances | Treated as an update, not a correction, with the update date and what changed noted. |
We set deadlines in advance for re-checking content: up to 6-12 months for culture and history, and up to 3 months for companies, statistics, and institutions. We check information related to travel, safety, and application deadlines again immediately before publishing or resharing it. While we do not have a 24-hour response system in place, we do not use labels such as “real-time” or “continuously monitored.”
Use of AI
AI is an assistant, not a reporter.
- What we use it for — Organizing story ideas, summarizing non-confidential materials, drafting outlines, producing drafts based on primary sources, assisting with translation, and checking wording. In every case, a person checks the primary sources, and the person in charge takes responsibility for the manuscript.
- What we don’t use it for — Creating fabricated interviews, quotes, sources, photographs, writers, or field offices. Automated publication without verification. Entering sensitive reporting information without approval. Treating AI output as a new source.
- When AI has substantially contributed to writing the body of an article or to translation, we state in the article which step it was used for and who checked it. If it was used only to fix typos, we keep that in our internal record instead.
- Generated images are used only for abstract explanatory diagrams and for our guide character, Oriuka, and are labeled as such. We do not use them in ways that could look like a battlefield, victims, or evidence from the scene.
Our guide character
Some articles feature a guide character, Oriuka. Its role is to raise a single question just before a word or figure where readers are likely to pause, and to point them to the part of the text, chart, or source, or the related article, that holds the answer.
- How it was made — Oriuka is a brand character created from a generated image. The character’s backstory (such as “the Information Desk at the Fold”) is fiction meant to help with reading, and does not depict any actual place, history, or folklore of Ukraine.
- Not a basis for facts — Oriuka is not a writer, reporter, or editor. Its lines never present new facts or testimony; the facts of an article are shown in the body text and its sources. Its lines are checked against the article’s body text before they are published.
- Kept out of heavy articles — We place neither its image nor its lines in articles or passages that deal with casualties, specific damage, loss, mourning, combat, the personal experiences of people who were displaced, or first-hand testimony. Nor do we have it make political claims, give expert judgments, or endorse advertising or fundraising.
- Languages — At present it appears only on Japanese-language pages. How its name and lines will be handled in Ukrainian will be decided after review by a native speaker.
For a fuller introduction to the character, and the rules on where it does and does not appear, see About Oriuka (in Japanese).
Editorial independence
We manage situations where our relationship with an operating company or business partner could influence an article, through advance disclosure, separation of duties, and disclosure to readers. For details, see About Us and Advertising.
About this policy
We review this policy as we operate. If we revise it, we record the date of revision and what changed. If you notice an error, or a discrepancy between this policy and our actual articles, please let us know via Corrections.
Revised: September 24, 2026 — Revised the item on generated images under “Use of AI” and added the section “Our guide character.”