Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the editorial standards of The Economic Times?
Executive Summary
The Economic Times (ET) sets editorial expectations around pluralism, high writing standards, and corrections-driven accountability, emphasizing columnists who present complex ideas engagingly while avoiding personal or commercial promotion. ET’s stated columnist policy and editorial pages underline a commitment to multiplicity of perspectives known as anekantvad, and its correction policy reinforces a public-facing promise of accuracy and transparency [1] [2] [3] [4]. This fact-check synthesizes those claims, situates them against broader industry codes, and highlights where ET’s documented materials are specific and where they rely on general journalistic norms [5] [6].
1. How ET describes its identity: pluralism as editorial DNA
The Economic Times publicly frames its opinion and columnist pages around pluralism and multiplicity of perspectives, invoking the Sanskrit concept anekantvad to explain an editorial aim of hosting competing worldviews rather than a single editorial line; columnists are expected to translate complex ideas into modern, readable prose without promoting private or commercial interest, and editors actively work to refine submissions to meet quality benchmarks [1] [2] [3]. These materials date from a foundation of commentary policy and recent editorial summaries, with the columnist policy recorded in 2013 and reiterated in later editorial statements, indicating a long-standing institutional preference for variety of viewpoints and editorial intervention to maintain standards [2] [3] [1]. ET’s language centers on enabling debate while policing conflicts of interest and quality.
2. Corrections and accountability: a documented commitment
ET’s correction policy explicitly emphasizes accuracy, transparency, and accountability, with a formal update posted on December 23, 2024; this policy demonstrates a procedural commitment to correct errors and notify readers, aligning with standard practices for reputable newsrooms [4]. The presence of a dated corrections framework is a concrete indicator that ET recognizes institutional responsibility for factual mistakes and reader trust; the policy’s recent timestamp (late 2024) shows maintenance of routine editorial governance beyond opinion pages and suggests systems for post-publication review. While policy language does not guarantee flawless implementation, the documented correction protocol is a measurable editorial control consistent with newsroom standards for accountability.
3. Where ET’s stated standards converge with industry codes
ET’s stated principles—accuracy, fairness, pluralism, and correction—align with broader journalistic codes of practice used by other major outlets, which emphasize honesty, balance, and transparent corrections; examples of these industry norms include editorial codes from Financial Times and The Globe and Mail and the Editors Guild of India guidelines, which stress independence, fairness, and accountability [5] [6] [7]. These comparative materials, while not ET documents, provide a benchmark showing ET’s policies are consistent with recognized standards in reputable journalism. The convergence suggests ET’s public-facing rules place it within mainstream expectations for news organizations, though the degree and visibility of enforcement vary across outlets.
4. What the documented materials do not fully specify
ET’s publicly stated policies clearly articulate values and mechanisms for columnists and corrections, but the materials provided do not lay out granular editorial processes such as fact-checking workflows, conflict-of-interest investigations, source verification thresholds, or the editorial hierarchy used to resolve disputes. The columnist policy and correction policy set expectations and post-publication remedies, yet they leave open how day-to-day reporting standards are operationalized across beats, the resourcing of investigative verification, or metrics used to measure compliance. This gap is typical when organizational statements emphasize principle over procedural transparency, and it means assessments of ET’s on-the-ground rigor depend on external audits, high-profile corrections, or investigative reviews rather than solely on the published policies [2] [4].
5. Balancing perspectives and potential agendas readers should note
ET’s avowed emphasis on pluralism aims to present competing worldviews, but pluralism as policy can be wielded differently depending on newsroom culture and commercial pressures; the written policy disallows columnists’ promotion of personal commercial interests and stresses editorial refinement, yet the practical selection of which voices are amplified and which dissenting views are greenlit remains an editorial judgment that can reflect institutional priorities. Comparing ET’s statements with industry codes shows alignment in principle, but readers should note that declared standards do not eliminate bias or editorial agenda; they provide a normative framework subject to application by editors and corporate governance, which is not exhaustively detailed in the materials provided [1] [2] [5] [4].