← Back to Amazon News Watch

Amazon News Watch Editorial Standards

Amazon News Watch reports on disputes involving the Amazon, its peoples, territories, ecosystems, governments, businesses, infrastructure, security, and economic development.

Our journalism is independent, evidence-based, and fair to all materially relevant parties. Fairness does not require us to pretend that every claim is equally credible, that every party holds equal power, or that internationally recognized human rights are merely one opinion among several.

We distinguish between facts, allegations, interpretations, opinions, and unresolved questions. We give parties a meaningful opportunity to explain their actions and respond to material criticism. We evaluate claims according to the quality of the evidence supporting them, not according to the political, economic, or military power of the person making them.

How We Cover Indigenous Peoples

Whenever a story may affect Indigenous peoples, their territories, cultures, livelihoods, safety, or rights, we actively research and present the perspectives of the affected Indigenous people or peoples.

We do not assume that all Indigenous communities share one position. We seek the views of legitimate representative institutions, leaders, organizations, women, elders, youth, and other affected voices where appropriate and safe.

We do not manufacture an Indigenous perspective when direct information is unavailable. In such cases, we clearly state what efforts were made, what information could not be obtained, and what established Indigenous-rights standards may be relevant.

We recognize that Indigenous territory is not simply an economic asset. It may be inseparable from identity, memory, food systems, spirituality, language, mobility, governance, and cultural survival.

What Our Editorial Values Favor

• Protection of the Amazon and its ecological systems
• Indigenous dignity and human rights
• Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination
• Protection of culture and traditional knowledge
• Legitimate claims to ancestral territories
• Meaningful participation in decisions
• Free, prior, and informed consent where applicable
• Protection of environmental and human-rights defenders
• Accountability for environmental and social harm
• Development alternatives that do not sacrifice people or ecosystems without their informed participation

These commitments do not permit us to distort evidence, conceal inconvenient facts, or ignore legitimate disagreement. When Indigenous institutions, environmental organizations, governments, companies, or other actors make unsupported claims, we examine them critically. Partnership does not eliminate scrutiny.

Our Standard Is Not Equal Space

Our standard is fair examination, proportional evidence, meaningful representation, historical context, and transparency about our own position. We distinguish the reporting from our editorial assessment.

What a Typical Report Includes

1. What is known
2. What remains unverified
3. What the principal parties say
4. What affected Indigenous peoples say
5. The environmental and territorial evidence
6. The applicable rights and legal context
7. Who benefits and who bears the risk
8. Questions that remain unanswered
9. The ColombianAmazon.com assessment
10. Sources, corrections, and subsequent updates

What We Will Not Publish

We will not publish sensitive community locations, private contacts, real-time movements, security information, or other details that could expose Indigenous partners, sources, field coordinators, or communities to danger. When public verification is limited for legitimate security reasons, we explain the limitation without pretending that undisclosed information has been independently proven.

Pseudonymous and Institutional Bylines

Colombian Amazon Journal may publish certain reporting and analysis under pseudonyms or institutional bylines when public identification could expose writers, sources, Indigenous partners, or local communities to retaliation or unnecessary risk.

The editors know the identity of every contributor and apply the same standards of documentation, verification, sourcing, fairness, corrections, and accountability to pseudonymous work as to named work.

Institutional bylines may also be used where reporting reflects the work of multiple contributors or the collective findings of the publication. Pseudonyms and institutional bylines are never used to fabricate qualifications, affiliations, ancestry, access, or lived experience.