Editorial Policy

Our Founding Principle

Cyber Kannadigas exists to serve readers, not sources, advertisers, or any political or commercial interest. Every editorial decision — what to cover, how to frame it, whose voice to include — is made with one question in mind: does this help our readers understand and protect themselves in the digital world?

Story Selection

We cover cybercrime, data privacy, digital fraud, and online safety with a focus on Karnataka and the Kannada-speaking community worldwide. We prioritise stories where:

• Readers face an immediate or ongoing risk that accurate information can help them manage.
• There is a verifiable public interest beyond novelty or entertainment.
• We can add original reporting or analysis beyond what official advisories already say.

We do not publish unverified claims simply because they are trending on social media. We do not republish government press releases without independent corroboration. We do not write about alleged cyber-victims or accused persons without making reasonable efforts to reach them for comment.

Sourcing Standards

All factual claims in our articles must be supported by at least one of the following: official government or regulatory documents (RBI, CERT-In, MeitY, NCRB, Karnataka government publications), peer-reviewed or institutionally published research, direct statements from named sources willing to be quoted, or primary documents such as FIRs, court orders, or corporate filings. Where we rely on a single source, we say so. Anonymous sourcing is permitted only when the source faces credible risk of harm and the information cannot be obtained any other way; all anonymous sourcing must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

Fact-Checking Workflow

Our draft-to-publish process has four stages. First, the reporting journalist files a draft with source documentation attached. Second, a second editor reads the draft specifically to verify factual claims against the source documents — this is a separate step from copyediting. Third, for any story involving legal claims, active investigations, or named individuals accused of wrongdoing, the Editor-in-Chief reviews the draft before publication. Fourth, all technical claims in security-related stories are reviewed by our technology and security analyst before the story goes live.

Stories involving YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) content — financial fraud, health-related scams, government warnings — receive the most rigorous review and are not published until all claims are verified against primary sources.

Headlines and Framing

We do not write headlines designed to produce fear beyond what the facts warrant. Cybersecurity journalism is prone to alarmism; we resist it. Headlines must accurately reflect the substance of the story. We do not use clickbait formulations, unverified superlatives, or language that implies a threat is more widespread or severe than evidence supports.

Independence from Advertisers

Commercial relationships have no bearing on editorial decisions. Advertisers do not receive advance notice of stories. Sponsored or branded content is clearly labelled and kept separate from editorial content in both appearance and URL structure. No one outside the editorial team has authority to kill, modify, or delay a story for commercial reasons.

Right of Reply

Any individual, organisation, or institution named in a negative or critical context in our reporting is given a reasonable opportunity to respond before publication. We include substantive responses in the article. Where a subject declines to comment or does not respond within a reasonable deadline, we say so in the story.

Corrections and Updates

We correct errors promptly and transparently. See our Corrections Policy for full details. When a story is updated with new information, we add an editor’s note at the top of the article explaining what changed and when.