Editorial Standards

Trust is earned over time, not claimed with a slogan.

The Daily Operational Brief is built around a simple standard: get the information right, explain the context, and be clear about what is known, what is still developing, and what is my own assessment.

I would rather leave something out of a report than include information I cannot reasonably support.

Speed matters, especially during developing events, but accuracy matters more.

Accuracy Comes First

Whenever possible, I work from primary or official sources.

If credible sources disagree, I will not hide that disagreement or force a conclusion just to make the report sound certain.

If the information is still developing, I will say that.

Being first does not mean much if the information turns out to be wrong.

How I Choose Sources

I prioritize information from the organizations directly involved in an event whenever possible.

That may include federal, state, and local government agencies; law enforcement; fire and EMS; emergency management; public health authorities; weather agencies; courts; military organizations; transportation agencies; utilities; official statements; and other primary sources.

Established news organizations and specialized professional sources (open-source intelligence) may be used when primary information is unavailable, incomplete, or additional context is needed.

Social media can be useful, especially during fast-moving incidents, but a post being widely shared does not automatically make it reliable.

Verification

Before information becomes part of a report, I try to answer a few basic questions.

• Who is the original source?
• Is the information current?
• Has another reliable source confirmed it?
• Does the evidence actually support the claim?
• Is important context missing?
• Has the situation changed since the information was first reported?

Reporting and My Assessment Are Different

The factual reporting and my assessment are intentionally separated.

The reporting sections summarize what credible sources are saying and what can reasonably be established from the available information.

My assessment is where I step back and look at what the information may mean operationally.

That can include what stands out to me, what may develop next, who could be affected, and whether I think the situation requires any change in awareness or preparedness.

My assessment is analysis. It should never be confused with a confirmed fact or an official government threat determination.

Developing Information

Some events change quickly.

Early information may be incomplete, casualty figures may change, warnings may be expanded or canceled, and agencies may correct earlier statements.

When the operational picture changes in a meaningful way, I will update the reporting rather than continuing to repeat information that is no longer accurate.

I also try not to issue updates simply because another article appeared. An update should reflect a real change in the situation. For the most part, I will publish two updates daily. Once in the morning PST and once in the evening PST. During major events (i.e., active shooter, ect), I might publish multiple updates with what data I might have or noise I am hearing.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

I use artificial intelligence as a tool to help manage the amount of information involved in producing this publication. I monitor over 453 live sources at any given time.

It may assist with organizing source material, identifying duplicate reporting, building timelines, summarizing documents, structuring drafts, formatting content, and preparing different versions of a report for the website, email, or WhatsApp. All of my assessments are 100% based on my experience and expertise, not AI.

AI is not the editor.

I decide what belongs in the report, what needs additional verification, what should be removed, how the information should be explained, and what my final assessment is.

I'm operating solo with the help of some small robots.

Every published report remains my responsibility.

Corrections

I am going to make every reasonable effort to get things right the first time, but no publication is perfect.

If I publish a material factual error, I want to correct it.

Significant corrections should be acknowledged rather than quietly changing the record and pretending the error never happened.

Minor spelling, grammar, or formatting changes may be corrected without a formal notice when they do not change the substance of the reporting.

A separate Corrections Policy explains this process in more detail.

Threat Reporting

I do not want ordinary incidents turned into terrorism, extremism, espionage, hate crimes, or coordinated threats without evidence.

If law enforcement or another credible authority has not established a motive, I will not manufacture one.

The same applies to viral rumors, anonymous social-media claims, and speculation after major incidents.

If something is alleged, preliminary, or under investigation, I will describe it that way.

Editorial Independence

The Daily Operational Brief is independently produced.

Coverage decisions are based on relevance, reliability, and operational value rather than party politics, outside pressure, or what is most likely to generate outrage.

I may cover political decisions when they have a practical impact on public safety, healthcare, law, infrastructure, security, the economy, or other areas relevant to the publication.

The purpose is to explain what changed and what it may mean, not tell readers which political side they should support.

What I Will Not Do

• Publish rumors as confirmed facts
• Manufacture urgency for clicks
• Hide important uncertainty
• Present opinion as verified reporting
• Imply motives that the available evidence does not support
• Ignore significant corrections
• Fill sections with irrelevant information just to make the report longer
• Publish sensitive operational details that could create a security problem (OPSEC)

The Standard

The standard I want every report to meet is pretty straightforward.

Accurate enough to trust.

Clear enough for anyone to understand.

Detailed enough to be useful.

Honest enough to say when something is not yet known.

Calm enough that readers leave informed instead of unnecessarily alarmed.

Last reviewed: August 2026

These standards may be updated as the publication grows, but the basic principles behind them will remain the same.