Wirecutter
Skip To Content
Wirecutter

Wirecutter’s Editorial Standards

Here’s an abridged version of the editorial standards that guide our journalists’ work. We are posting them publicly in the spirit of transparency.

Wirecutter is the product-recommendation service of The New York Times. Our mission is to save readers time and eliminate the stress of shopping by recommending what really matters, and our core values are in service of that goal.

We always work with complete editorial independence, as the most important thing to us is reader trust.

We want to help people choose the tools in their life wisely, quickly, and painlessly. We achieve this by independently testing and reviewing thousands of products, performing rigorous and multi-sourced reporting, and having empathy for the choices our readers face.

We’re not afraid to make tough calls. Our choices and our news judgment are grounded in our goal to be the most trusted product-recommendation service around.

These editorial standards are a living document composed of practical guidelines based on a set of broad reporting and ethical standards that we use to maintain reader trust: accuracy, honesty, impartiality, independence, sensitivity and inclusivity, and transparency. The aim of these guidelines is to help Wirecutter journalists make judgments that are in line with our values and mission.

Standards quick reference

Here are the most important things to remember from Wirecutter’s reporting and ethical standards policies.

Avoid conflicts of interest with sources

Aim to verify that every fact is supported by a reputable source. A source who is in a position to derive personal or professional benefit from what they are talking about could open our work up to the perception of bias.

Present information honestly

Don’t plagiarize others’ work. Cite studies and other sources used. If you include information verbatim from a source, use quotation marks around their exact language.

Be transparent about corrections

If an article requires a correction, work with the research and standards team to fix errors as swiftly as possible.

Write about people with sensitivity

Refer to ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic status, disabilities or medical conditions, gender and sexual orientation, or size and appearance only when relevant for readers to understand our work. When you do so, use accurate, sensitive, and up-to-date language.

Preserve our editorial independence with regard to the products we test

Don’t accept unsolicited or free products even if they are sent along with products you’ve requested. Any test products that we have not chosen as a pick should be returned to the companies that lent them, donated, or, when products cannot or should not be reused, recycled when possible or disposed of.

Be mindful on social media

You are perceived as a representative of Wirecutter and The New York Times when you speak publicly. Represent yourself in a manner that does not undercut the journalistic reputation of Wirecutter or The New York Times. This includes being mindful of expressing partisan opinions or promoting political views in public.

Accuracy

To ensure our readers’ trust, accuracy is paramount. We aim to verify that every fact we publish is supported by a reputable internal or external source, that it’s properly attributed, and that the information is presented in context. We guard against assumptions and subjective statements masking as facts by thoroughly double-checking our work line by line. When we do use information from outside sources, we focus on original, primary sources whenever possible.

Reporting on news that’s unfolding

If we mention news that is unfolding, we’re judicious in our word choices about what we know and don’t know. For example, if a lawsuit is announced citing wrongdoing by a company, we use words such as alleged to describe the wrongdoing until we know otherwise.

Using authoritative sources

Wirecutter is a workplace full of experts and knowledgeable sources, but we also consult authoritative primary sources and secondary sources. A source is anyone or anything that gives us information. We must thoroughly check the sources we rely on to make sure they’re trustworthy and authoritative.

Writers should reference the most authoritative, mainstream, and widely accepted sources on a subject.

  • Wirecutter journalists reporting on a specialized topic within a field of study should seek out an expert in that particular topic, not just one with a general degree in the field.
  • If you are discussing product safety, include information from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, rather than a retailer website.
  • When you’re talking about health information, cite the CDC, FDA, AMA, or other relevant professional medical body, for instance, rather than an individual article or a popular health website.
  • Use blogs and message boards only in a careful and contextualized way by linking to any discussions being cited, for instance, in a particular subreddit. Anonymous posters on message boards, personal blogs (whether signed or not), and retailer websites rarely meet the standards of an authoritative source. In most cases, even if we know that a personal-blog article is presenting accurate information, we should find an official, authoritative source for the information.

Finding the original source is best, so long as that source doesn’t place an undue burden on the reader to access or interpret the information. For example:

  • Linking the reader to a giant .xlsx file from the Bureau of Labor Statistics isn’t helpful. If the original source is convoluted, linking to an authoritative secondary source that summarizes the information is preferable.

To check the trustworthiness of a website, consider the following:

  • Who made the website and why? For example, if it’s a website owned by a specialist, trade group, membership organization, or nonprofit, read the “About Us” page, if it’s available. That page should be straightforward and should clearly explain the mission of the individual or organization.
  • Has the information been updated in the past few months?
  • Does the article link to other websites that are credible?
  • Are there any misspellings, broken links, or other errors or problems that affect the site’s overall quality?
  • Check the mission, values, or agenda: Does the main purpose of the site appear to be to provide information, or is it promoting a specific point of view or trying to sell products? Some sites or organizations may have neutral or scientific-sounding names (such as the Infant Nutrition Council of America) but actually represent the interests of companies (in this example, formula companies).
  • Keep an eye out for red flags such as overly colorful or politically charged language.
  • Poke around for any other posts on the blog or site that might espouse values in opposition to ours.

When referencing a scientific study:

  • Aim to use only peer-reviewed studies, those that are checked by other scientists. Note: Preprints are articles published online before they’ve been peer-reviewed and, often, before they’ve been submitted to a journal.
  • Link to the study, rather than to an article describing the study.

Evaluating potential conflicts of interest of a source

Generally, “conflict of interest” refers to a source (someone interviewed, or whose work we cite) who might otherwise appear to be a neutral, independent party but is or was in a position to derive personal or professional benefit from what they are talking about, such as a company or product. The existence of a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that the source is biased or “tainted,” that the source doesn’t have good information that you can use in some way, or that the source is untrustworthy or dishonest. It does, however, open up Wirecutter’s work to the perception of bias, which our journalists should avoid in every way possible.

If we aren’t proactive and transparent about conflicts of interest, it could affect how our readers view the credibility of our sources and our reporting.

How to find out if a source has a conflict of interest:

  • The conflict of interest may be apparent simply in the source’s job title (such as with PR representatives and company spokespeople, industry groups or consultants, salespeople, and store owners). In those cases, the nature of the source’s relationship to the product or company they’re talking about is usually evident in their attribution, and we don’t need to dig any further or include extra disclosures.
  • Other conflicts of interest are less clear and need to be researched and, possibly, disclosed more directly. Sources in this category include brand ambassadors, researchers who have received grants or funding from companies whose products we’re testing, experts who have patents used in the products they are talking about, experts who work as paid consultants for companies or industries, and experts who have websites with affiliate links for products they’re talking about. In addition to reviewing these sources’ professional background (past jobs and affiliations, LinkedIn profile, CV), directly ask them about conflicts of interest.
    • Sample wording: “To check whether we need to include any disclosures or clarifications in the article, could you let me know if you have any current or past financial ties to any of the products and companies we’ve talked about? For example, patents, funding, or consultancy work?”

How we disclose a conflict of interest depends on the degree of the conflict and how we plan to use the source. Wirecutter journalists should consult with their editor and/or the research and standards editor as soon as they find out about the conflict so that they can figure out how they’ll use the source’s information and how they’ll disclose the conflict.

Other types of sources that may have conflicts of interest:

  • Study authors: All reputable journals require that authors disclose any relevant conflicts of interest, real or perceived, and note significant sources of funding outside of their own institution’s support (public or private grants, industry money, donations). Funding sources and conflicts of interest are typically reported at the end of scientific studies. This information is often not in the abstract; access and read the full study before deciding how to cite it. Finding the information may require contacting the authors of the study to ask whether their work was commissioned or funded by a company that stood to benefit from the research. This doesn’t mean that all authors are disclosing all their sources of funding or potential conflicts, past and present. We still have to ask sources about their conflicts and do our own investigating.
  • Nonprofits, industry organizations, and advocacy groups: The names of organizations can be misleading. Check for parent companies and subsidiaries.
  • Newspapers and other media: Check if the outlet has a slant or position that could bias its reporting. And confirm that the sources the outlet used in its reporting don’t have conflicts of interest—these can be overlooked even in work by mainstream and otherwise trustworthy sources.

Verifying our reporting

Reader trust is dependent on accurate reporting. Following our fact-checking guidelines, we scrutinize every article we publish to ensure that each fact has an authoritative source; that it is clear, logical, and consistent; that it meets our standards; and that the specific details are accurate.

Including sources lists

Sources lists can help reinforce to readers our commitment to accurate reporting, and they enhance our credibility and transparency. We now limit sources lists to sources we interviewed; we no longer use this list to repeat mentions of articles, videos, websites, books, or other published items that we already mention and link to in the text. When you quote an unnamed company spokesperson, do not list them in the sources list.

We include a sources list in most articles for which we interviewed two or more sources.

Recalls and safety alerts

When we become aware of a recall or safety alert on a product in one of our guides, we add a note to the guide with the specific details, and we provide relevant links for readers to learn more about the recall. Be sure to run the language for this note by someone on the research team. Even if the product is not one of our picks, if it is within the category that the guide covers, we should note it; doing so alerts readers who may be using that recalled product, and the note provides a service by directing them to other options.

Honesty

Honesty in how we represent ourselves and our work is fundamental to reader trust. When we’re reporting, whenever possible we disclose that we are journalists to the people we cover, whether face to-face or otherwise. We never assert a false identity or affiliation or otherwise misrepresent ourselves.

However, we need not always announce our status as journalists or reporters when seeking information normally available to the public, such as if we’re representing ourselves as members of the general public for secret-shopper reporting on a company we’re covering for an article.

How we present information

We don’t plagiarize others’ work. If we are including information verbatim from a source, we put quotation marks around it and give proper attribution so that the source is clear; this applies whether the quoted information appears within the text, in a caption, or as a pull quote. We link to articles and studies that we mention in our journalism.

Obeying the law while reporting

Wirecutter journalists must obey the law while performing work duties for Wirecutter, as defined by their local, regional, and national governmental bodies. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments, or offices. They may not purloin data, documents, or other physical or electronic property, including but not limited to databases and email or voicemail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files, or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on sources.

Dealing with competing publications

Wirecutter journalists compete zealously but deal with competing publications openly and honestly. We do not invent obstacles to hamstring their efforts. When we use facts reported by another publication or journalist, we attribute them. When working alongside competitors during industry events, Wirecutter journalists should endeavor to keep their work separate from those representing other publications. We may not accept payment from competitors for news tips.

Defining “on the record” and “off the record”

We do not record conversations without the prior consent of all parties to the conversations. Even where the law allows recording with only one party aware of it, the practice is a deception.

In the work that we do, there are relatively few legitimate instances in which a source has an excellent reason for being off the record, on background, or not for attribution. We always try to get sources on the record, and if we can’t, we try to find another source.

  • If, at the top of the interview, we clearly identify ourselves as journalists and explain why we are reaching out to the source, everything they subsequently say is implicitly understood to be on the record. This means that we can use the information they provide, with no caveats, quoting the source by name.
  • All conversations are assumed to be on the record unless the source expressly requests—and we explicitly agree—to go off the record beforehand. “Off the record” means that the information a source provides cannot be used for publication and that the source cannot be named; such information is typically provided to give the journalist additional information or context. When a source says that a discussion is “off the record”:
    • It is critical to clearly talk through what that means and to agree on the definition. These rules must be agreed to at the outset of an interview. A source cannot say “By the way, that was all off the record” at the end of a 30-minute interview; if they wish for the information to be off the record, they must ask for that before the interview.
    • If we can confirm the information with another source who doesn’t insist on speaking off the record—whether that means the source agreed to talking on the record, on background, or not for attribution—we can publish it.
  • If a source says that something is “on background,” we may use the information that the source gives us, but without attaching it to any mention or description of the source. We should try to verify the information elsewhere before publishing it.
  • If a source says that the information they have is “not for attribution,” this means that we agree not to identify a source by name but in some cases can reference the source’s job or position in general. That identification must be agreed upon by the journalist and the source, and it is almost always given in a way that prevents readers from discovering the source’s identity.

Sensitivity and inclusivity

To best serve our readers and provide the most useful recommendations, we seek diverse voices and perspectives when we are testing and reporting. We approach our reporting with empathy for the breadth and depth of human experience, and we determine our picks based on diligent review of all the information at our disposal.

Our articles aim to provide thoughtful, timely, and practical help to make buying decisions easier for everyone, not just one particular group.

We ensure that our testing and reporting practices meet our standards of inclusivity by regularly reviewing our journalism—including articles already published—and by utilizing and maintaining our database of research resources that provide access to and information about diverse sources.

Using diverse sources in testing and reporting about products

When creating a test panel, we aim to find as diverse a sample as possible, whether it’s finding people who wear a range of T-shirt sizes to test for the best one or using people who have various language-processing disorders and speak different dialects to determine the most effective dictation software.

When we are determining whom to interview for a story, our goal is not only to find the most trustworthy and authoritative sources but also to seek sources who are representative of the people who are reading our articles. Some helpful questions to ask during reporting:

  • Are all of the sources white? Are all of them men? Are all of them able-bodied?
  • Are they in an ivory tower, or are some on the ground? Try to find a mix of both where possible.
  • Are all the sources in the same age group?
  • Do all of the sources live in coastal cities?

In making our asks of testers, however, make specific asks for testers of a particular identity only if it is pertinent to the item being tested, and be specific in your ask. For instance, for sunscreen testing across skin tones, seek volunteers based on specific skin tones you’re looking for, as opposed to volunteers based on race. Or for testers of men’s clothing, look for those who wear a particular size in men’s clothing, rather than testers of a certain gender.

Writing about people

We strive to use accurate, sensitive, and up-to-date language when talking about individuals and groups of people. This can include how we refer to people belonging to different ethnic, racial, socioeconomic, or other demographic groups; people with disabilities or medical conditions; people’s gender and orientation; and people’s size or appearance.

There is no single source that covers the best practices for all groups and people. Wirecutter journalists should refer to our editorial style guide, consult with their editor and with the copy edit team, and use these additional resources for guidance:

New York Times Stylebook

The Diversity Style Guide

National Center on Disability and Journalism Style Guide

National Association of Black Journalists Style Guide

The Association of LGBTQ Journalists Style Guide

Trans Journalists Association Style Guide

Avoiding assumptions and generalizations about people

We are careful to avoid making assumptions or generalizations about people, including our readers, but assumptions can easily slip into a description of a product. We should consistently examine our journalism for blanket statements and stereotypes. For example:

Blanket statements about people based on age or gender are unhelpful generalizations:

  • “The smart blood pressure monitor’s extra features may be confusing for elderly people.”
  • “Women may find this backpack too wide in the shoulders.”

There are rare exceptions, but in general feminine and masculine are vague terms that rely on stereotypes to stand in for accurate description. Try to avoid using feminine or masculine, or gender neutral, to describe people or things.

Being specific

We use nonjudgmental, inclusive language that does not designate what is normal and abnormal. Our testing panels are not necessarily representative of all people, and typically they are not large enough for us to draw sweeping conclusions.

Wherever possible, and with the consent of testing-panel members, we try to be as specific as possible about our testers and indicate how that information might be relevant to our readers. For example, instead of saying “if you’re smaller, this backpack might be too large,” we should say something like, “if you’re under 5-foot-3, this backpack might be too large.”

Using minors as sources

Before interviewing a minor or using a minor in one of our testing panels, always get a parent or legal guardian’s permission. And be cautious about including identifying details; for example, use only their first name when referring to them in an article, if you use their name at all.

Profanity and offensive language

Ideas about what is offensive are constantly evolving, but in general we try to avoid profanity in our articles. The editorial style guide has general rules for this, but writers should consult with their editor if they’re unsure what’s appropriate to include.

Transparency

Transparency about our journalistic processes is essential to maintaining reader trust. Wirecutter journalists are open about the methods they use in reporting, take ownership of their journalism, and are accountable for errors.

Bylines and reporting credits

Writers of an article receive a byline, unless the article is generally from Wirecutter staff, in which case the byline reads “Wirecutter Staff.” Most articles should have no more than two bylines. A reporter who contributed to the article may get a “contributed reporting” credit at the end.

Editors of an article are also credited at the end. Naming the editors increases transparency about who worked on the article and reinforces to readers the work that goes into publishing our reporting.

For rewritten articles, we use the following guidelines: The first time an article is rewritten by a different writer, we move the original byline and give them credit at the end of the article. (The editor should confirm, if possible, whether the original bylined writer wants to be credited.) In the spirit of a rewrite, we encourage the new writer to complete new reporting. When a writer has been assigned to rewrite an article but ultimately preserves two-thirds or more of the original work, the writer gets an additional-reporting attribution at the end of the article rather than a new byline.

Only editors of the current article are credited at the end.

Timestamps and notes

Outdated information is not helpful to readers. To make sure our published work provides service to readers with the most up-to-date and accurate information, we periodically review it, and we update it or rewrite it where necessary.

We update the timestamp when we have reviewed an article and made minor edits to the introduction, or made behind-the-scenes changes, such as adding images or a bulleted list to a section.

We both update the timestamp and add a note when we want to make readers aware of essential information and updates to an article, such as new-pick announcements, upcoming product testing, or timely and important news, such as product recalls.

Revealing our process

Wirecutter journalism is distinguished by the ways in which our journalists demonstrate the work that goes into finding our recommendations. The “How we picked,” “How we tested,” and “Why you should trust us” sections in our guides explain our methods and highlight the expertise (our own and that of our sources) informing our reporting.

We also publish articles about our standards, such as how we vet sources. These articles underscore our commitment to readers to be the most trusted product-recommendation service.

Anonymous sources

We have an extremely high bar for using anonymous or pseudonymous sources. Readers have a right to know where information and insight are coming from. We do not allow a source to be anonymous or to use a pseudonym just because they prefer to. There has to be a very good and compelling reason that anonymity is critical for, say, the source’s personal safety. And even in such a case, our likely path would be to find a different source.

We can make allowances for nicknames or preferred names, such as Davey instead of David, but we cannot obscure a source’s identity.

The same rules do not apply for a “dead name” that might appear on a person’s birth certificate (for example, we would only ever refer to Caitlyn Jenner).

Corrections and clarifications

Wirecutter journalists make every effort to ensure the accuracy of everything we publish, but mistakes can happen. We take corrections seriously, and we endeavor to fix all errors and address all requests for clarification as swiftly as possible. Below are our policies on handling corrections and clarifications:

  • When we encounter a factual error in our reporting, we update the article with the correct information and a note titled “Correction” addressing the error and how we have corrected it.
  • If a source alerts us to the error, we respond immediately, informing them that we will look into the error and follow up with them. The writer, the editor, and the research team discuss the error and examine the reporting and sourcing. If we determine that there is indeed an error that needs correcting, we issue a correction and follow up with the source to let them know.
  • If a source or a company mentioned in an article contacts us and asks for a clarification, and the clarification would increase the accuracy of the article, the writer and the editor (and research) discuss how to incorporate that information.
  • If a source or company requests the addition of information—for example, incorporating a link to a particular page on the source’s or company’s website—it is at the discretion of the editor (in consultation with research) whether to add that information.

Impartiality

We ensure our impartiality by being mindful of how we represent ourselves when appearing to the public, including online.

Wirecutter journalists have a duty to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. We should never invoke Wirecutter’s name or The New York Times’s name in private activities. We should protect our reputation for fairness by being cautious about expressing political opinions or points of view that may be interpreted as representative of the company as a whole, and we must be vigilant against any appearance that we’re abusing nonpublic information for financial gain. And we should never disclose confidential information about our operations, policies, or plans.

This policy extends to relatives and close friends. Wirecutter journalists should discuss with their supervisor any situation that involves a potential for conflict of interest or a threat to the organization’s reputation in the activities of a spouse, partner, relative, or close personal friend; such situations could include, for example, a spouse’s job, political activities, or business relations. In some cases, disclosure is enough. But if Wirecutter considers the problem to be serious, the staffer may have to withdraw from certain coverage, and sometimes an assignment may have to be modified or a beat changed.

This policy does not bar us from responding openly and honestly to any reasonable inquiry from a reader about our work. If a reader asks for a correction or clarification, we should give that request careful and thoughtful review.

Representing Wirecutter and The New York Times in public

Wirecutter journalists cannot collaborate in ventures involving organizations that figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package, or supervise. Examples include collaborating in writing books, pamphlets, reports, scripts, scores, or any other material, and in making photographs or creating artwork of any sort.

Except in reviews or columns published by Wirecutter, The New York Times, or other Times properties, or appropriately voiced in public appearances authorized by the editor-in-chief, Wirecutter journalists may not represent Wirecutter in offering endorsements, testimonials, or promotional blurbs for books, films, television programs, or any other programs, products, or ventures.

They may not serve on government boards or commissions, paid or unpaid. They generally may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees, or similar groups except those serving journalistic organizations (or otherwise promoting journalism education), houses of worship, community charities, local libraries, fine-arts groups, hobby groups, youth athletic leagues, country clubs, and alumni groups. Depending on the circumstances, exceptions may be made to permit Wirecutter journalists to serve their alma mater (or their children’s alma mater) as a trustee or visitor at schools that seldom if ever generate news of interest to Wirecutter.

Wirecutter journalists may not solicit funds for organizations that operate political campaigns for local, state, or federal office or that participate in lobbying activities as a substantial part of their total activities.

Speaking engagements and other media appearances

Outside appearances can enhance the reputation of our bylines and serve our interests. Nevertheless, no Wirecutter journalist may appear before an outside group if the appearance could reasonably create an actual or apparent conflict of interest or undermine public trust in our impartiality. Wirecutter journalists should be especially sensitive to the appearance of partiality when they address groups that might figure in coverage they provide, edit, or supervise, especially if the setting might suggest a close relationship to the sponsoring group.

Wirecutter journalists must always discuss speaking engagements, including appearances related to promoting a book they’ve written, and extensive speaking schedules with their supervisors. Furthermore, speeches and other outside endeavors, paid or unpaid, should not imply that they carry the endorsement of Wirecutter or The New York Times (unless they do); to the contrary, they should gracefully remind the audience that the views expressed are their own.

Regarding payment related to speaking engagements:

  • Wirecutter journalists who write books that derive from their assignment or beat and who want to promote them may accept fees for promotional appearances but must make every effort to ensure that their appearances conform to the spirit of these guidelines and do not interfere with their job responsibilities.
  • Wirecutter journalists may accept speaking fees, honorariums, expense reimbursement, and free transportation only from educational or other nonprofit groups for which lobbying and political activity are not a major focus.

Book projects

Any Wirecutter journalist intending to write or assemble a nonfiction book based on material that derives from their assignment or beat must seek permission from Wirecutter in advance.

In contemplating book projects—or other outside endeavors—that derive from their assignment or beat, Wirecutter journalists must never give an impression that they might benefit financially from the outcome of news events. They may not negotiate with any outside person or entity for any rights to an article or story idea before the article has run in Wirecutter.

Book projects that don’t derive from their assignment or beat must comply with our freelancing policy. At no time may a Wirecutter journalist turn over notes, interviews, documents, or other working materials that derive from their assignment or beat to any third party, including agents, producers, studios, or outside production agencies, or share those materials with them unless authorized to do so by the editor-in-chief or legally compelled to do so.

Providing financial or other advice

It is an inherent conflict for Wirecutter journalists to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid. They should not take part in public relations workshops that charge admission or imply privileged access to Wirecutter or Times people, or participate in surveys asking their opinion of an organization’s press relations or public image. They are free, however, to offer reasonable help to institutions such as their child’s school, a small museum, a community charity, or their house of worship.

Avoiding financial conflicts of interest

We must be constantly vigilant against any appearance that we are abusing nonpublic information for financial gain. Any Wirecutter journalist, regardless of assignment, is free to own diversified mutual funds, money market funds, and other diversified investments that they cannot control. They also may own treasury bills, investment-grade municipal bonds, debt securities other than speculative bonds, and securities issued by The New York Times. And they are of course free to own stocks entirely unrelated to their Wirecutter assignment.

No Wirecutter journalist may own stock or have any other financial interest in a company, enterprise, or industry that figures or is likely to figure in coverage that they provide, edit, package, or supervise regularly, other than stated in the previous paragraph. For this purpose, an industry is defined broadly; for example, a Wirecutter journalist responsible for any segment of covering electronics may not own any stock in electronics companies.

Wirecutter journalists may not buy or sell securities or make other investments in anticipation of forthcoming articles.

If they own stock in a company outside their regular beat and are assigned to write or edit an article about that company or its industry, they must discuss the investment with their assigning editor before beginning the work. In many instances it will be perfectly permissible for the work to proceed, but they may not buy or sell stock in the company or industry until two weeks after the article’s publication.

A Wirecutter journalist who owns stock and moves into an assignment where such holdings are not permitted must sell the stock. For instance, it is manifestly untenable for a new electronics editor to own stock in an electronics company, so the divestiture must be prompt.

Independence

Conflicts of interest can undermine trust in our reporting. To ensure the integrity of our coverage, we reduce the potential for bias by exercising independent editorial judgment, and we maintain our neutrality through careful consideration of our interactions and relationships with the people and companies we encounter through our reporting.

Sometimes conflicts are unavoidable, and when they arise, we evaluate them with the goal of finding an honest and transparent resolution of that conflict.

Policy on affiliate revenue

Our business makes its money primarily through affiliate revenue. This means that if people trust our recommendations, and if they then purchase—and keep—the things we review, we make money. But if they return bad products, we make nothing. That’s why reader trust is paramount. Without it, we have no business.

To maintain editorial integrity, detailed information regarding our revenue is not shared with our newsroom. We never want editorial employees’ decisions on what picks to make to be influenced by how much money a product brings Wirecutter in affiliate revenue. We never want to be perceived as choosing a pick for any reason other than our editorial evaluation of its quality. Wirecutter journalists will never be asked to take part in influencing business partners. The business side handles all conversations about partnership or affiliate revenue. Wirecutter journalists may speak with PR people and product managers, but any discussions about business, partnerships, licensing, or affiliate revenue should be handled only by the business team.

Advertising

Wirecutter journalists will never be asked to participate in the direct creation of advertiser marketing copy or advertorials, excepting those promoting Wirecutter or The New York Times. If an advertiser or licensee asks to have us review a product, we will do so only through our standard editorial vetting process, which makes sure that products meet our requirements for testing and review.

Interacting with publicists and press releases

Publicists help us find and build relationships with sources and help us learn more about how a product or service works. We work with them to ask for samples for testing, to learn more about how products are manufactured, and to ask companies hard questions. But our news agenda is not dictated by any publicist’s agenda. We do not take a company’s words at face value or parrot its claims with the assumption that they’re true. We approach every product and service with careful analysis and healthy skepticism. With that in mind:

  • Be aware of what a PR person or company isn’t saying. Just as an editor is editing as much for what isn’t on the page as what is, Wirecutter journalists should look at a press release and wonder what’s being left out. For example, a company is unlikely to mention if the FDA has concerns about the product’s safety.
  • Interview experts to see if a company’s claims are even possible. And if they are possible, ask whether the described features or benefits are safe, especially in the health realm.
  • Report only what we actually know to be true. If a company’s press release claims that a battery lasts 10 years, all we know is “the company claims that its battery lasts 10 years,” not “this battery lasts 10 years.”
  • Make it very clear which claims in an article are from our independent reporting, and which claims originated from the company.

NDAs and embargoes

If a company asks us to agree to an embargo for news or upcoming information, we will agree to that embargo verbally or via email. However, if a company needs something more formal or is asking for a signature on a legally binding NDA (non-disclosure agreement), only authorized signers are allowed to enter into those types of contracts on behalf of Wirecutter.

Policies on products we test

To maintain our editorial independence, we do not keep unsolicited or free products, and we do not keep test products except for long-term testing. Our product orders and testing guidelines outline how to return or donate products.

For products we’ve tested:

  • Any test products that we have not chosen as a pick should be returned to the companies that lent them to us as soon as possible after the completion of the guide. If the company does not want the product returned, we should donate it.
  • If a product has been chosen as a pick, the guide’s editor may elect to allow the writer or another staffer to keep the product for long-term testing for as long as it remains the pick. When we replace the pick, and we no longer need the product for long-term testing, we should return the product to the manufacturer or donate it.

For defective or dismissed products:

  • If we dismiss a product prior to testing for reasons that are either well documented in customer reviews or obvious (such as too high a price), contacting the manufacturer for comment is not necessary.
  • If we test a product and find that it does not meet our expectations or it appears to be defective, or if it is one of only a few items that don’t meet expectations, writers or editors are expected to reach out to the manufacturer for comment. If the manufacturer does not respond within a reasonable amount of time as determined by the editor, say so in the text. This step adds time to the process but girds our findings against criticism.
  • We may also take the additional step of calling in or buying a duplicate item to retest. The decision regarding how to retest the product should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

How we compensate experts and testers

For most guides, we do not compensate experts who speak with us on the record. Occasionally, we may involve experts as consultants to work with us on testing. Wirecutter journalists should consult with an editor before agreeing to work with outside consultants.

When we conduct test panels, we may choose to compensate participants, but we determine this on a case-by-case basis. Wirecutter journalists always disclose whether testers in their guides were paid.

Sharing our journalism with sources

Unless we are under exceptional circumstances—and we have approval from edit leadership—we do not share our work with sources before it is published. And we do not allow sources to change what they said on the record or dictate how we report a topic. We verify factual information from sources according to our fact-checking guidelines, using interview backup (transcripts, articles, and the like). If we need to reach out to a source to clarify a quote, we paraphrase the quote rather than reading it back verbatim.

Relationships with sources

Relationships with sources require the utmost in sound judgment and self-discipline to prevent the fact or appearance of partiality. Cultivating sources is an essential skill, often practiced most effectively in informal settings outside of normal business hours. Yet Wirecutter journalists, especially those assigned to beats, must remain aware that personal relationships with sources can erode into favoritism, in fact or appearance. And conversely we must remain aware that sources are eager to win our goodwill for reasons of their own.

Even though this topic defies hard-and-fast rules, it is essential that we preserve a professional detachment to cultivate an unbiased relationship. Though informal communication is permitted, we should be mindful of the difference between social and business engagement. For example, we may see sources informally over a meal or drinks, but scrupulous practice requires that periodically we step back and take a hard look at whether we have drifted too close to sources we deal with regularly.

Those who develop romantic, partnered, or other close personal relationships with people who might figure in coverage they provide, edit, package, or supervise must disclose those relationships to their manager. Further action will be determined based on the impact on their main work and any conflict of interest that may arise when they are covering the subject of their partner’s or close friend’s work. Such action may include, in certain cases, recusing themselves from certain coverage or modifying assignments or beats.

The legitimate activities of companions, spouses, and relatives can sometimes create journalistic conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts. They can crop up in civic or political life, professional pursuits, and financial activity. A brother or a daughter working at Whirlpool, for instance, might produce the appearance of conflict for an appliance writer or editor.

To avoid such conflicts, Wirecutter journalists may not write or edit coverage about companies for which their family members, partners, or close personal friends have involvement. Such individuals are allowed to contribute to product testing or modeling for photos. However, in the interest of transparency, such relationships should be disclosed within the article. Anyone who isn't sure should ask their editor or supervisor for guidance.

Accepting hospitality from companies and sources

We pay our own expenses when we travel for work. In some business situations and in some cultures, accepting a meal or a drink paid for by a source may be unavoidable. For example, a Wirecutter journalist need not decline every invitation to speak to a manufacturer or source over lunch in the corporation’s private dining room, where it is all but impossible to pick up the check. Whenever practical, however, they should suggest dining where Wirecutter can pay.

Wirecutter journalists may not accept free or discounted transportation and lodging except where special circumstances give us little or no choice. Among those circumstances are certain scientific expeditions and other trips for which alternative arrangements would be impractical (for example, group press buses that move people from one end of the conference to the other during the CES trade show). Wirecutter journalists should consult their supervisors and/or the editor-in-chief when special circumstances or questions arise.

Accepting gifts and discounts

Any goods sent as gifts should be politely declined and either sent back or donated. We do not accept gifts from the manufacturers, retailers, or public relations firms with which we work. (This policy does not include promotional items distributed to all attendees at trade shows and conferences.) Accepting such gifts imperils the integrity of our coverage. Politely decline and return the gift to the sender, or in the event that the sender refuses to take the gift back, donate it via coordination with our operations team and obtain a receipt.

Wirecutter journalists may accept any gifts or discounts available to the general public. Normally they are also free to take advantage of conventional corporate discounts, free admission at museums, or other benefits extended to all employees by virtue of The Times Company Foundation’s support of various cultural institutions.

We must be mindful, however, that significant discounts—excluding those that The Times has negotiated for employees—can connote partiality. Those who have a hand in the coverage of the company or industry offering the discount should consult their supervisor if they have concerns about maintaining impartiality in light of discounts.

Unless the special terms are offered by The Times or a Times subsidiary or affiliate, Wirecutter journalists may not buy stock in initial public offerings through “friends and family shares” where any plausible possibility exists of a real or apparent conflict of interest. They may not accept allocations from brokerage firms.

Competitions and contests

Wirecutter journalists may not enter competitions sponsored by individuals or groups who have a direct interest in the tenor of our coverage. They may not act as judges for these competitions or accept their awards. Common examples are contests sponsored by commercial, political, or professional associations to judge coverage of their affairs. The editor-in-chief may make exceptions for competitions underwritten by corporate sponsors if they are broad in scope and independently judged.

Wirecutter journalists may compete in competitions sponsored by groups whose members are all journalists or whose members demonstrably have no direct interest in the tenor of coverage of the field being judged. They may act as judges for such competitions and accept their awards. For example, a Wirecutter journalist may enter a university-sponsored competition for coverage of environmental consumer products but may not accept an advocacy group’s prize for outstanding environmental coverage.

Wirecutter journalists are free to accept honorary degrees, medals, and other awards from colleges, universities, and other educational institutions; however, unsought awards from groups that do not meet the criteria established here should be declined politely.

Accessibility

Readers who come to us for advice related to disability and aging in place are generally either seeking solutions to a chronic need or responding to a sudden change in their or their loved ones’ lives, such as a fall, onset of dementia, or another change in their ability to care for themselves. Shopping for accessibility needs can be a frustrating, expensive, and overwhelming experience.

We can serve our readers best by approaching their needs with compassion, prioritizing dignity and clarity, and providing thorough research and context to back up everything we say. We should be thoughtful and intentional in how we direct our advice and to whom. For these readers in particular, it is especially important not to assume that the decision-makers are exclusively the caregivers and not the disabled, chronically ill, or older people. Our work should also demonstrate awareness of other factors that may be at play in our readers’ lives, such as multiple disabilities or health conditions, income level, geographic location, level of family support, and cultural differences.

Our accessibility and aging in place editor helps ensure that our reporting adheres to our criteria for best serving these readers whether we’re reporting for a standalone article or within the context of a guide or blog post.

Sustainability

The goal of our sustainability coverage is to help readers understand the trade-offs between product performance, price, accessibility, and environmental impact. Never judgmental or flippant, we engage with reader questions and concerns surrounding the environmental and health impacts of buying and using a product, transparently share what we know and what we don’t, and provide actionable advice to readers. We aim to be direct, contextual, pragmatic, and, above all, accurate. We do not perpetuate myths or greenwashing terms.

Privacy and security

Privacy is complicated. Privacy is equal parts the ethics of the individual, the priorities of society, and corporate responsibility. It’s our job to explain those issues and provide readers with the tools to understand the privacy implications of any products we review both on a personal level and on a broader level. With privacy, we’re here to predict what questions a reader might have and try to answer them before they ask.

Though security and privacy often go hand in hand, they are very different concerns. Security applies to how data is handled and whether it’s kept secure both on a device and online. It also applies to any private data stored, such as health data, financial information, a Social Security number, and anything else that easily identifies a person. With security coverage, our goal is to outline best practices and to hold most companies to the same standards, though the level of security necessary is also related to the data involved. (For example: A camera in a house should have more security protections than, say, a smart toothbrush.)

Social Media

It’s imperative that we are smart and thoughtful in our social media use, and that we think before we post. Social media is an umbrella term for a variety of online forms of communication, including but not limited to text, video, audio, and pictures published on services such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, blogs, internet forums, and message boards. Just as in the real world, we may be perceived as a representative of The New York Times when speaking publicly.

The following should serve as a guide to help Wirecutter journalists identify and avoid potential pitfalls when using social media:

  • Be mindful when commenting on colleagues’ or other publications’ activities, employees, or work, including, for example, that of The New York Times. Avoid insulting or making fun of other review publications and their employees.
  • Be courteous to our readers, even when we think they are wrong. Respond to criticism of our work constructively, or pass it to our community team to respond to.
  • If readers or people from other publications ask questions about our business model, affiliate relationships, how we make money, who we’re partnering with, and the like, we should not answer directly. Bring those questions to the attention of your manager or editor-in-chief, or direct them to the appropriate page on our website.
  • The standards of behavior as established in The New York Times’s anti-harassment policy apply equally online as they do in the physical workplace.
  • As stated in the Mission and Values statement of The New York Times, the trust of our readers is essential. We renew that trust every day through the actions and judgment of all our employees—in our journalism, in our workplace, and in public. To that end, it is essential that each of us protects The New York Times’s independence by communicating in ways that reinforce our role as journalists. Fair or not, we are perceived as representatives of Wirecutter and The New York Times when we speak publicly, and at all times we should ensure that we are representing ourselves and our group in a manner that does not undercut The New York Times’s and Wirecutter’s journalistic reputation. This includes being mindful of expressing partisan opinions or promoting political views in public.
  • Do not pass the work of others off as our own. Respect the laws regarding copyrights and trademarks. Provide links, @-mentions (or the equivalent), or other attribution when citing or referring to sources of information.
  • We may not infringe on Wirecutter’s or The New York Times’s logos, brand names, slogans, or other trademarks.
  • If we’re using social media to raise funds for charity or a cause, avoid any appearance that Wirecutter or The New York Times endorses this effort.
  • Feel free to answer reader questions or help people on social media. That’s the core of what we do as a publication, and we pride ourselves in being helpful on all mediums, even if it’s not on our site. Remember that our expert community team can also help field reader questions!
  • Overall: Try to be wise and to approach social media with the helpful but respectfully direct mindset that we would take on our site and in our workplace. If we wouldn’t say something on our website, on Slack, or directly to someone’s face in person, we probably shouldn’t post it on social media, either.

Freelancers

Conflicts of interest for our freelance writers

Our readers apply exacting standards to the entire publication. They do not distinguish between staff-written articles and those written by outsiders. Thus, as far as possible, freelance contributors, while not employees of Wirecutter, are held to the same reporting and ethical standards as staff members when they are on Wirecutter assignments. If they violate these guidelines, they will be denied further assignments.

When we hire freelance writers, we should confirm that they do not have significant financial relationships with companies that would threaten their ability to be impartial in their reporting. For example, some personal finance writers and influencers have brand deals in which credit card companies pay for branded content, or certain beauty writers may have received gifts or money in exchange for social media posts. We should avoid using the services of anyone who falls into this category.

Edit