The Declaration of Journalistic Independence Posted: November 08, 2006

This Declaration of Journalistic Independence outlines the code of integrity followed by NaturalHealthReport.com and all staff writers, editors and primary content contributors. Here are its key points, followed by a detailed explanation of why this Declaration is so important:

1. No direct advertising revenues accepted. We never ask for, nor accept money to write news or product recommendations.
This one is quite simple: our news cannot be bought. No payola. We do allow Google to choose and place ads for us, but we never accept money directly from advertisers, nor do we solicit advertising from anyone. No companies can buy its way onto our content sites.

2. No scheduling fees or shakedowns.
Some media companies ask for "scheduling fees" to provide editorial coverage to companies. They might get paid $500 for an article, $5,000 for an audio interview, or even $20,000 for a video segment. This practice is more common than you might suspect. But here at NaturalHealthReport.com, we think it's just a thinly-veiled shakedown for cash. We never solicit companies for money. Our interviews and feature articles are chosen based entirely on merit, not on who can write us the largest check.

3. No investments in the companies we cover.
No writers or editors who contribute content to NaturalHealthReport.com are allowed to own shares of stock in any companies directly mentioned in our content. This is designed to avoid any real or apparent conflict of interest.

Note that the FDA routinely fails to even disclose (much less disallow) conflicts of interest between drug panel decision makers and pharmaceutical companies. Similarly, scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently balked at the idea that they could not own stocks in biotech or pharmaceutical companies that would be directly affected by the publication of their research. But here at NaturalHealthReport.com, we believe this comes down to an issue of common sense integrity: if you're going to be an objective reporter or decision maker, you can't maintain financial ties with the companies you cover.

4. No revenues from nutritional products.
(This section was modified in July, 2006, to allow NaturalHealthReport to post affiliate links to a limited number of non-nutritional recommended products such as water filters, bathroom scales and exercise equipment.)

We do not earn any money from the recommendation of nutritional products of any kind, including vitamins, herbs and supplements. All our links to such products are clean links with no affiliate codes. As a result, we earn no kickbacks or commissions on such product recommendations.

As of July, 2006, we do publish "marketplace" recommendations for a limited number of non-nutritional products such as quality exercise machines, natural pet supplies and green home products. All such affiliate links are clearly designated as "marketplace" recommendations. This change was put in place in part due to the suggestions of readers who wished to find a way to support NaturalHealthReport when purchasing the products we openly review and recommend. These affiliate links provide much-needed revenue to NaturalHealthReport without costing readers anything extra. In doing so, they help keep our content free to readers.

5. Full disclosure of all revenue sources.
Here at NaturalHealthReport.com, we believe in being honest and up-front with our readers. Our policy of full disclosure for all revenue sources means that you know exactly how we earn our revenues, and there are no secret deals with anybody. Currently, our revenue model is based 100% on the sale of books (from www.TruthPublishing.com), Google Adsense revenues and affiliate links to non-nutritional products such as exercise equipment (which are clearly designated as marketplace links). We earn no other revenues from any source whatsoever.

6. No selling of reader data.
We respect our readers -- and their privacy. That's why NaturalHealthReport.com never sells reader data or customer information such as email addresses, names or other information. While most publishers (nearly all magazines, for example) treat customer information as their own property to sell and resell to anyone, NaturalHealthReport.com believes in protecting the privacy of readers.

7. No recommendations of products we don't genuinely like.
NaturalHealthReport.com product recommendations and listings are provided exclusively for products we genuinely recommend or use ourselves. We never recommend products to readers that we wouldn't recommend to our friends. Our main criteria for product recommendations is simply what we believe will be of the greatest value to our readers.

8. No venture capital influence.
Many companies that appear to be doing some good at first glance are actually heavily influenced by investment money from for-profit corporations who have a profit agenda. Many disease organizations, for example, like the American Diabetes Association or the American Heart Association, accept millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies or even junk food manufacturers.

Similarly, some nutritional supplement manufacturers are now partially owned by those very same pharmaceutical companies. None of this proves that corruption is taking place in these organizations, but it does create a structure of potential influence where investors with large purse strings are able to influence the direction of these organizations (usually by sitting on their Board of Directors).

In contrast, here at NaturalHealthReport.com, we do not accept investment funds from anyone: not from private investors, venture capital groups, nor corporations. As a result, we answer to no one, which means we can continue to bring our readers the blatant truth on topics that really matter. Journalistic freedom is not having to worry about who to please (or who to avoid offending) when you write. It is a rare thing in our modern information society.

9. No publication of known falsehoods.
NaturalHealthReport.com will not knowingly publish any content (article, ebook, or otherwise) that we know to be false. This may sound like an obvious point, but how many newspapers, news websites or news magazines do you know that actually have such a policy? You see, news outlets that have to please advertisers are inevitably in the business of publishing distortions. Many knowingly publish content that is either carefully selected or altered to keep advertisers happy. And yet many of these same publishers are actually defrauding those very same advertisers by publishing false circulation data (the scandals are widespread).

Of course, NaturalHealthReport.com content is not 100% free of errors. No publication is. But when we become aware of errors, we will correct them. And we will continue to publish the truth as we see it. "Truth," of course, is subjective. We do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth, and there are a variety of ways to look at many issues like health care reform, global warming, prescription drugs, and so on. The difference, however, is that our truth is based on respect for life, integrity, and a desire to end suffering by empowering people with information that enhances quality of life. The truth put forth by many mainstream publishers, in contrast, is based on pleasing advertisers or pursuing a political agenda.

The Declaration of Journalistic Independence explained

Almost every media outlet maintains direct financial relationships with the same corporations they are supposed to be "objectively" covering in their content. Medical journals, for example, sandwich so-called scientific studies in between full-page advertisements paid by the very companies that stand to lose (or gain) huge sums of money based on the conclusions of such studies or editorials. And in the world of medicine, the vast majority of the studies published in medical journals are authored by individuals who also maintain direct financial ties to the affected corporations. This is an egregious lapse in ethics.

While mainstream publishers insist their content is not influenced by advertising money, those who have worked in media understand the obvious truth: advertising money inevitably influences editorial decisions, either directly or indirectly. Indirect influence can include editing stories to have a more "advertiser-friendly" slant, or simply spiking stories that may prove troublesome to large advertisers.

Large advertisers are also frequently granted direct access to key decision makers. One phone call to the editor, placed by the CEO of a corporation that has a hundred million dollar annual advertising budget, can make all the difference in the content and tone of the final news product read by the public. We're not saying that all mainstream publishers are corrupt, only that it would be naive to believe that money exerts no influence over editorial decisions.

Remember, politicians raising money for election campaigns also insist that political contributions have no influence either. Do you believe them? And if money didn't have influence, then why do the world's most powerful corporations consistently and repeatedly donate hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians (sometimes to two or more opposing political parties) before every election?

All of this helps explain why most mainstream news blatantly reflects the financial interests of the world's largest and most influential corporations. This is not to say that every single newspaper, magazine or news center is engaged in news fraud -- because there are many outstanding news centers, and even more high-integrity individual journalists still working the beat -- yet only a wholly naive person would believe that news is selected and published based on what's truly important to the people rather that what generates the most profits for these news corporations.

In other words, you'd have to be pretty green to think the mainstream news business exists merely to serve the public good. It isn't. And anyone who has been in the business for a couple of years knows it full well. You don't see much of this reported in the press because, obviously, the media's least favorite topics are "media bias" and "news fraud."

Here at NaturalHealthReport.com, we believe that the only way to maintain journalistic integrity is to take corporate influence out of the equation. Take the purse strings away, and advertisers can no longer influence the content. When a publication has no advertising department, no rate card, no salespeople, and never asks companies for money, then (and only then) can it truly call itself objective and unbiased.

Since day one, NaturalHealthReport.com has held to a strict policy of journalistic integrity. Now we are precisely defining that policy and sharing it with our readers. We call it our Declaration of Journalistic Independence, because we are truly independent from the influence of advertiser money. That's why, by the way, you'll find our reporting is never biased in favor of for-profit corporations (which is why it all seems so radical compared to the mainstream, which is almost universally biased towards for-profit corporations).

There are many honest publishers and publications in the world, but there are far more dishonest ones. NaturalHealthReport.com hopes that you make a habit of spotting the difference. Some key questions to ask yourself about any publication (newspaper, magazine, cable news, etc.) are:

Six questions to ask yourself about any news source

Why is this such a conflict of interest? Because it teaches the publisher to create advertiser-friendly article content as a way to generate advertising opportunities that ad salespeople can then pitch to deep-pocketed advertisers. Ultimately, it turns the publication into a giant advertorial.

In contrast, at NaturalHealthReport.com, Google chooses our advertisers after we have already written, edited and posted our feature articles. So there's no conflict of interest, and there's no solicitation of advertisers.

2. Does the publication in question send you subscription offers disguised to look like invoices or bills? Many magazines and newspaper use this dishonest tactic to trick people into thinking they owe money when, in reality, they do not. Any publication stooping to this trick is blatantly demonstrating its own lack of ethics. Its content, therefore, cannot be trusted.

3. Does the publication in question interrupt you with excessive, annoying ads? Some internet sites are little more than ad pollution pages with a hint of actual content. Many big-name magazines have nothing but ads for the first ten pages, and an increasing number of online news sites are now using "welcome pages" which are little more than full-page interruption ads. If you notice any of these things, keep in mind they're probably more interested in selling ads than providing you with meaningful content.

4. Does the publication in question charge companies exorbitant fees for article reprints? If so, it may be publishing content just to sell reprints back to the company covered in the story. NaturalHealthReport.com, in contrast, allows companies to freely reprint any and all articles about them that appear on our network.

5. Does the publication in question try to collect demographic information about you to sell to advertisers or mailing list companies? If so, they probably think of readers as nothing more than revenue sources, and they'll sell (and resell) any information you give them. Sure, they'll have a privacy policy somewhere, but the fine print of that policy will ultimately give them the right to violate your privacy anyway.

6. Does this publication accept advertising from "evil" corporations? Evil corporations are those that directly harm the people or the planet. Tobacco companies, some drug companies, junk food makers, military weapons manufacturers, and pesticide makers are all examples of "evil" corporations. Evil is subjective, of course, but the nature of the advertising directly accepted by any publication speaks volumes about its ethics (or lack thereof).

At NaturalHealthReport.com, we allow Google to choose our ads, and we regularly ban ads from companies that violate our ethics (although a few isolated ads slip through from time to time, so we're not perfect). Even then, there's a huge difference between allowing an automated Google engine to choose relevant text ads versus directly accepting large checks from evil corporations. Most publishers, it turns out, will accept advertising money from just about any corporation, regardless of its ethics or behavior.

In the age of Enron, Worldcom, insider trading and other cataclysmic gaps in corporate ethics, it's time for organizations of all kinds (publishers, product makers, news organizations and otherwise) to offer straight talk to their customers and readers about their ethical guidelines and boundaries. This document is NaturalHealthReport.com's effort to do just that.

Thank you for your interest in the NaturalHealthReport.com Declaration of Journalistic Independence.

###