New Statesman

https://www.newstatesman.com · 40/92 checks passed · media

Compliance report (framework 0.8)

Gate passed (every Core check must pass) · not counted towards the gate: paused 35, draft 48, ready for review 54.

Site level: 0 (no scored checks yet).

By level

LevelResult
Level 1 — Basic 18/37 (19 failed)
Level 2 — Enhanced 10/27 (17 failed)
Level 3 — Advanced 0/10 (4 failed)

By category

CategoryResult
Accessibility 5/13
Accountability 1/5
AI & Automation 3/8
Interoperability 2/3
Privacy 5/16
Provenance 1/2
Security 4/11
Transparency 7/13
Responsibility to the Future 0/3

Level 1 — Basic

Accessibility

FAIL Proper heading hierarchy
  • Heading hierarchy issues: h2 -> h4 (skipped h3); h2 -> h4 (skipped h3); h2 -> h4 (skipped h3); h1 -> h4 (skipped h2); h2 -> h4 (skipped h3) ….

AI & Automation

FAIL AI use policy in place
  • policy_exists: The About page describes editorial standards and complaints procedures but contains no AI use policy or statement.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated AI use policy section on the About or Editorial Standards page outlining the organisation's stance on AI in journalism.
  • scope_clear: There is no mention of AI at all, so the scope of any AI use is not explained.
    Fix: Clearly describe which editorial tasks (e.g., research, transcription, summarisation) may involve AI and which do not.

Privacy

Security

Transparency

FAIL Funding/sponsorship disclosure
  • disclosure_exists: The About page mentions ownership by Progressive Media Investments and past owners but contains no dedicated funding or sponsorship disclosure.
    Fix: Add a clear funding/sponsorship disclosure section on the About page identifying revenue sources such as subscriptions, advertising, and ownership investment.
  • transparent: While the parent company is named, funding sources (subscriptions, advertising, sponsorships, grants) are not clearly identified anywhere on the page.
    Fix: Explicitly list each funding source (e.g., subscription revenue, advertising, partnerships, parent company support) so readers can see who funds the publication.

Level 2 — Enhanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published response timeframes
  • response_timeframe: The page lists phone hours (Mon-Fri 9am-5pm) but does not publish any response timeframe for email or written enquiries.
    Fix: Add an explicit response-time commitment (e.g., 'We aim to respond within 5 working days') next to each contact channel.
  • specific: No specific response timeframes in days or hours are provided for any enquiry type.
    Fix: State concrete durations such as '2 business days for press enquiries' rather than leaving response expectations unstated.
FAIL Documented complaints process
  • process_exists: The page provides only a 'comments@newstatesman.co.uk' address for editorial comments and a help centre link, but no documented complaints or feedback process.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated complaints policy describing how to submit a complaint, who handles it, and escalation options.
  • steps_clear: No step-by-step instructions for lodging a complaint or escalating it are given on the contact page.
    Fix: Add numbered steps outlining how to submit a complaint, acknowledgement timing, investigation process, and escalation route if unsatisfied.
FAIL Clear appeals process
  • appeals_exists: The contact page lists various email and phone contacts but does not document any appeals process for disputing decisions or content.
    Fix: Add a dedicated section outlining a documented appeals process, including steps, timelines, and contact points for lodging an appeal.
  • independent: No appeals process is described, so there is no indication of independence or escalation beyond the initial contact.
    Fix: Establish and describe an escalation path (e.g., to an independent editor, ombudsperson, or external reviewer) for appeals that cannot be resolved at the first stage.

AI & Automation

FAIL Published AI use policy (detailed)
  • detailed_scope: The page contains no AI policy and therefore no detailed scope of AI use.
    Fix: Add a detailed AI policy specifying the tools, workflows, and content types where AI is or is not applied.
  • limitations: No limitations of AI systems are acknowledged because no AI policy exists on the page.
    Fix: Include a statement acknowledging AI limitations such as hallucinations, bias, and the need for human verification.
  • safeguards: No safeguards or quality controls related to AI are described on the page.
    Fix: Document safeguards such as mandatory human editorial review, fact-checking, and disclosure labels for AI-assisted content.
FAIL AI-assisted content clearly marked
  • marking_policy: The About page describes editorial standards but contains no policy for marking or labelling AI-assisted content.
    Fix: Add a clear statement to the editorial standards section describing when and how AI-assisted content will be labelled or disclosed to readers.
  • consistent: Without a stated AI marking policy, there is no evidence on this page that any labelling is applied consistently.
    Fix: Publish a written AI disclosure standard and commit to applying it uniformly across all articles, newsletters, and podcasts.
FAIL Human oversight of AI documented
  • oversight_exists: The editorial standards section discusses verification and sourcing generally but does not document any human oversight specifically for AI outputs.
    Fix: Add a section explicitly stating that AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs are subject to human editorial review before publication.
  • review_process: No review or approval workflow for AI-generated content is described on the page.
    Fix: Describe the specific steps (e.g., editor sign-off, fact-checking, sourcing verification) used to review AI-assisted material before it is published.
  • accountability: While Chris Bourn and the ombudsman are named for general complaints, no individual is identified as accountable for AI-generated content.
    Fix: Designate and publicly name an editor or role responsible for AI governance and accountability for AI-generated outputs.

Interoperability

Privacy

FAIL Human-readable privacy policy
  • exists: The page content shown is the New Statesman homepage listing articles, with no actual privacy policy text visible despite the /privacy path.
    Fix: Publish the actual privacy policy content at the /privacy URL instead of showing homepage article listings.
  • plain_language: No privacy policy text is present to evaluate for plain language.
    Fix: Provide a privacy policy written in plain, non-legal language at this URL.
  • comprehensive: No privacy policy content is visible describing what data is collected or why.
    Fix: Include comprehensive sections detailing the types of data collected, purposes, legal bases, and third-party sharing.
FAIL Plain language data practices
  • plain_language: No data practices are described on the page; only article links are shown.
    Fix: Add a clear, jargon-free description of data practices to the privacy page.
  • understandable: Without any privacy content, a non-expert cannot understand what data is collected or why.
    Fix: Include accessible explanations of each data type collected and the reason for collecting it.
FAIL Data collection limited to necessity
  • necessity: No statement about limiting data collection to what is necessary appears on the page.
    Fix: Add an explicit data minimisation statement confirming only necessary data is collected.
  • proportionate: No information is provided to assess proportionality of data collection to the service.
    Fix: Describe each data category and justify its proportionality to the service offered.
FAIL Published data retention periods
  • retention_stated: No data retention information is present on the page.
    Fix: Add a dedicated retention section specifying how long each category of data is kept.
  • specific: Since no retention periods are stated at all, specificity cannot be met.
    Fix: State concrete retention periods (e.g. '24 months for analytics data') for each data category.
FAIL No dark patterns in consent flows
  • no_dark_patterns: The page content provided shows no visible consent language or banner at all, so it cannot be verified that consent is gathered without manipulative framing.
    Fix: Display a clear, neutrally-worded consent banner on the privacy page (or link to one) with plain language describing cookie and data choices.
  • equal_choices: No Accept or Reject buttons are visible in the page content, so equal prominence of choices cannot be confirmed.
    Fix: Provide clearly visible Accept and Reject buttons of equal size, color, and prominence within the consent interface.
  • no_forced_consent: The page does not show any granular consent controls, making it impossible to verify that consent is not bundled or forced.
    Fix: Offer granular opt-in toggles for each processing purpose (analytics, advertising, etc.) rather than a single bundled accept option.
FAIL Advertising clearly labelled if present
  • ads_labelled: The About page contains no information about how advertising or sponsored content is labelled on the site.
    Fix: Add a section (or link to an editorial policy) explaining that sponsored content and advertising are clearly labelled as such with standard disclosure tags like 'Sponsored' or 'Advertisement'.
  • disclosure: The page does not disclose any relationship between editorial content and advertisers or commercial partners.
    Fix: Publish a commercial disclosure statement describing the separation between editorial and advertising, and disclose any financial relationships with partners referenced in content.

Provenance

Security

Transparency

FAIL Funding disclosed with detail
  • detail: No amounts, percentages, or categorical breakdowns of funding are provided on the page.
    Fix: Include meaningful detail such as the percentage or category breakdown of revenue from subscriptions, advertising, and parent-company support.
  • complete: The page does not cover major funding streams such as advertising, subscriptions, events, or Spotlight on Policy partnerships.
    Fix: Provide a comprehensive disclosure that enumerates all major revenue streams, including advertising, subscriptions, sponsored content/Spotlight partnerships, and any investor support.
FAIL Algorithm explanation if applicable
  • algorithm_explained: The About page describes editorial standards and history but does not mention or explain any algorithms used by the site (e.g., content recommendation, personalization).
    Fix: Add a section disclosing any algorithms used on the site (such as recommendation, ranking, or personalization systems) and plainly explain their purpose.
  • impact_clear: There is no description of how algorithmic decisions affect users, such as what content they see or how it is prioritized.
    Fix: Include a clear statement describing how algorithmic outputs affect the user experience, such as content surfaced, ads shown, or personalization applied.
FAIL Annual data practices statement
  • annual_statement: There is no evidence on this page of a regular or annual review of data practices, only an editorial standards statement.
    Fix: Add a note to the privacy policy (linked in the footer) indicating a periodic review cadence, e.g., 'This policy is reviewed annually and was last reviewed on [date].'
  • dated: No data practices statement is shown on this About page, and no date or version information is provided for any privacy-related content.
    Fix: Include a visible 'Last updated' date or version number on the privacy policy and link it prominently from the About page.

Level 3 — Advanced

Accessibility

Accountability

FAIL Published moderation policies
  • policy_exists: The Terms and Conditions page covers commercial advertising agreements but does not publish any moderation policy for user content or comments.
    Fix: Publish a dedicated moderation or community guidelines policy outlining what content is permitted and prohibited on the site.
  • criteria_clear: No moderation criteria are stated; the page only references the Publisher's right to refuse advertising material without defining standards.
    Fix: Add clear, specific criteria describing the types of content that will be moderated or removed (e.g., hate speech, harassment, misinformation).
  • enforcement: There is no description of a moderation enforcement process, appeals, or actions taken against violating content or users.
    Fix: Document the enforcement workflow including how violations are reported, reviewed, acted upon, and how users can appeal decisions.

Interoperability

Security

Transparency

FAIL Algorithmic decision criteria published
  • criteria_published: The page does not publish any specific criteria used in algorithmic decision-making.
    Fix: Publish the specific inputs and criteria (e.g., recency, topic, user history) that drive any algorithmic decisions on the site.
  • weighting: No information is provided about how criteria are weighted or prioritized in any algorithm.
    Fix: Document the relative weighting or priority order of the criteria used in algorithmic ranking or recommendation systems.
  • auditable: The page contains no technical detail, methodology, or contact path that would enable external audit or review of algorithms.
    Fix: Provide sufficient documentation (methodology, data sources, evaluation metrics) and a contact route so that independent reviewers can audit the algorithms.
FAIL Open source code or tech docs
  • open_source: The page does not link to any public source code repository for the site.
    Fix: Publish any reusable site components to a public repository (e.g., GitHub) and link to it from the About or Help Centre page.
  • tech_docs: No technical documentation about the site's platform, APIs, or data formats is provided or linked.
    Fix: Add a technical documentation page or developer section describing feeds, APIs, and site architecture, and link it from the footer.

Responsibility to the Future