1.1.1 This Editorial Policy and Standards Code (“Policy”) is the controlling governance instrument for all editorial, investigative, research, publication, knowledge-commons, and media-partnership activity conducted under the name, credentials, platforms, or marks of the Iranian Diaspora Cooperation & Development Council (IDCDC), including Chapters, Colleges, Fellows, stewards, volunteers, contractors, and any affiliated channels.
1.1.2 The Policy is constituted to ensure that IDCDC outputs are: (a) truthful and verifiable; (b) corrigible and version-controlled; (c) independent and enforceably non-capturable; (d) safety-aware and protective of participation; and (e) public-interest useful, especially in high-risk diaspora environments where harassment, infiltration, disinformation, doxxing, and retaliatory pressure are credible threats.
1.1.3 The Policy shall be interpreted in harmony with IDCDC’s Charter: strict non-partisanship; independence; civilian scope; non-execution perimeter; protected participation; method independence; and correction/supersession discipline.
1.2.1 This Policy applies to any content and activity that IDCDC publishes, hosts, distributes, cites, syndicates, certifies, credentials, or materially endorses.
1.2.2 This Policy applies to all formats without limitation: long-form reports, investigative series, briefs, dashboards, datasets, documentaries, podcasts, newsletters, op-eds, social content, training materials, translations, archives, and toolkits.
1.2.3 This Policy binds all persons acting in IDCDC capacity, including governance organs, staff, editors, investigators, data analysts, translators, moderators, peer reviewers, and any member using IDCDC credentials or publication channels.
1.2.4 Chapters and Colleges may adopt stricter local safeguards; no local instrument may weaken minima or create donor/partner vetoes over method, publication, or correction.
1.3.1 IDCDC’s editorial authority is earned by method: transparent standards, verifiable evidence posture, reproducible analysis where feasible, conflict-screened peer review, and disciplined correction and supersession.
1.3.2 IDCDC does not campaign, endorse parties/candidates, mobilize electorally, or serve factional narratives. Editorial work may address political and institutional realities only through evidence-led, non-propagandistic method and with explicit limitations and safety controls.
1.3.3 IDCDC will not provide “legitimacy services” to abusive, coercive, corrupt, or captured practices. When public-interest requires scrutiny, it shall be performed precisely, fairly, and with heightened verification standards.
1.4.1 IDCDC undertakes and publishes work only where there is a demonstrable public-interest justification. Public interest includes: protection of rights and dignity; accountability of institutions and resource controllers; exposure of corruption, coercion, trafficking, abuse, or infiltration; improvement of diaspora safety, resilience, and opportunity; and protection of free information, association, and speech within lawful bounds.
1.4.2 IDCDC rejects sensationalism and rage cycles. “Attention value” is not a justification.
1.4.3 When safety risk is high, IDCDC applies graduated disclosure: publish what is necessary and safely possible, redact what elevates risk, preserve internal audit trails, and maintain the capacity to correct without exposing vulnerable persons.
1.5.1 IDCDC outputs are informational and non-binding. They do not constitute legal advice, financial promotion, investment advice, or operational security guidance.
1.5.2 IDCDC will publish clear limitations and reliance boundaries while maintaining good-faith rigor and correction discipline, recognizing that trust is built by honesty about what is known, unknown, and uncertain.
2.1.1 Editorial work is a cooperative public-good function. Internal competition for access, prestige, “scoops,” or donor favor is prohibited.
2.1.2 Knowledge is treated as a shared asset: verification methods, relevant leads, risk learnings, and research notes shall be shared internally under handling rules.
2.1.3 Credit shall be allocated fairly through authorship, acknowledgements, and contribution logs. Plagiarism, appropriation, or suppression of colleagues’ work is sanctionable.
2.2.1 Each investigation or major feature must begin with a written method plan that specifies: (a) core questions; (b) public-interest rationale; (c) evidence strategy; (d) risk and safety posture; (e) conflict screening needs; (f) intended audience and benefit; (g) planned formats and accessibility; (h) translation posture; (i) right-of-reply plan; and (j) correction/update posture.
2.2.2 Multimedia design is required where it materially improves comprehension and verifiability (timelines, document viewers, maps, datasets, explainers). Multimedia is prohibited as a vehicle for dramatization, humiliation, or trauma exploitation.
2.3.1 IDCDC shall maintain structured after-action reviews for major publications and high-risk investigations to improve evidence discipline, safety controls, and editorial clarity.
2.3.2 Criticism must be candid, early, specific, and constructive. Retaliation, social punishment, whisper campaigns, and grudges are prohibited.
2.3.3 Raising doubts, stopping publication, or requesting re-verification is protected conduct and shall not be penalized.
2.4.1 Participation in editorial roles requires ongoing competence in: verification/fact-checking; disinformation recognition; trauma-aware interviewing; privacy-safe publishing; secure communications; records/versioning discipline; and basic defamation/privacy risk awareness.
2.4.2 High-risk investigations require designated roles: lead investigator, independent fact-check lead, evidence custodian, and safety reviewer.
2.4.3 Credential renewal for investigative/editorial roles may be conditioned on periodic training completion and demonstrated adherence to this Policy.
3.1.1 Topics must have clear relevance to diaspora communities: safety, rights, wellbeing, opportunity, civic integrity, inclusion, cultural vitality, and institutional accountability in host societies and diaspora ecosystems.
3.1.2 IDCDC will prioritize the lived realities of affected communities—refugees, students, newly arrived migrants, minorities, women, youth, vulnerable persons—over elite discourse and performative controversy.
3.2.1 IDCDC investigations are systems-revealing: incentives, structures, networks, governance failures, recurring patterns, and durable solutions.
3.2.2 Fast-turn reporting is permitted only when safety-critical and evidence-backed, and must include explicit uncertainty markers and an update plan.
3.3.1 IDCDC rejects scapegoating, fearmongering, and stereotyping of Iranians or any group.
3.3.2 Language shall be precise, bounded, and non-dehumanizing; imagery shall not humiliate, expose, or sensationalize victims.
3.3.3 Stories involving trauma require special care: avoid gratuitous detail, provide warnings where appropriate, and preserve the dignity and agency of survivors.
3.4.1 A do-no-harm gate is mandatory when publication could materially increase risks of harassment, surveillance, retaliation, family endangerment, deportation exposure, or community violence.
3.4.2 Where risk is disproportionate, IDCDC shall redesign, anonymize, delay, restrict, or publish only methods/findings without operational details that increase harm.
3.5.1 IDCDC shall not publish content whose primary function is reputational laundering, donor image control, factional advantage, intimidation, or personal revenge.
3.5.2 Allegations about private individuals require heightened evidentiary thresholds and a necessity showing that public interest outweighs foreseeable harm.
4.1.1 Investigators shall identify themselves as IDCDC stewards and disclose the general purpose of inquiry, except under a strictly controlled exceptional protocol.
4.1.2 Coercion, entrapment, inducement, or deceptive tactics are prohibited as investigative methods.
4.2.1 Commitments made to sources are binding on the institution. Promises of confidentiality, anonymity, embargo, or attribution shall be documented and honored.
4.2.2 Consent is continuous. If publication conditions shift, sources shall be re-briefed where feasible.
4.3.1 Confidential source identities are Restricted by default and shared internally only on strict need-to-know.
4.3.2 Where source consent for internal disclosure does not exist, reliability review shall proceed using anonymized descriptors, corroboration logs, and risk-screened debate without identity exposure.
4.3.3 Raw identifiers (names, faces, voiceprints, addresses, metadata) shall be minimized, redacted, or retained only under Restricted handling.
4.4.1 IDCDC shall maintain secure submission channels and protective modalities (confidential communications, anonymized tips, and compartmentalized evidence custody) proportionate to threat environment.
4.4.2 IDCDC shall evaluate retaliation risk before publication and may deploy: delayed publication, redaction, generalized descriptors, or controlled release.
4.4.3 Where credible threats emerge, IDCDC shall activate protective steps including publication holds, access restriction, and safety escalation through the Safeguards function.
4.5.1 IDCDC stewards shall not accept compensation, favors, gifts, hospitality, or sponsored travel tied to editorial activity.
4.5.2 Any offered benefit must be reported. Acceptance without authorization is misconduct.
4.6.1 Undercover work may be authorized only when all conditions are satisfied: (a) material public interest; (b) no viable alternative; (c) proportionality; (d) written approval by editorial leadership; (e) ethics review; (f) counsel review when relevant; (g) time-bounded plan and exit strategy; (h) documented internal accountability record.
4.6.2 Undercover methods shall not be used to manufacture wrongdoing; they are strictly for uncovering material facts otherwise unobtainable.
4.7.1 Investigations may begin with hypotheses, but must remain open to disconfirmation.
4.7.2 Contradictory evidence shall be preserved, logged, and reflected. Suppression or selective omission is misconduct.
4.8.1 High-risk investigations require early counsel involvement for defamation/privacy exposure, cross-border constraints, injunction risk, and protective publication.
4.8.2 Legal review is a safety and accuracy safeguard; it shall not become donor veto, factional censorship, or reputational blackmail.
4.9.1 Active investigations are confidential; uninvolved third parties shall not receive details.
4.9.2 Leaks for intimidation, prestige, donor advantage, factional gain, or sabotage are sanctionable.
5.1.1 IDCDC publishes to a standard of disciplined accuracy. Urgency does not relax verification; it requires clearer limitations, narrower claims, and explicit update plans.
5.1.2 Claims shall be framed at the confidence level actually supported by evidence.
5.2.1 Material factual claims shall be published only when supported by at least one of:
(a) credible documents in institutional custody with provenance;
(b) credible records/data analyzed and preserved with method notes;
(c) credible expert testimony corroborated to the maximum practicable extent.
5.2.2 Single-source claims are presumptively high-risk and must be corroborated, narrowed, or withheld.
5.3.1 Anonymous sourcing is permitted only where safety need is credible and documented, alternatives were attempted, and independent corroboration exists.
5.3.2 Anonymous sources shall not be used to launder factional narratives, defame individuals, or create unverifiable insinuation.
5.3.3 Where anonymity is granted, IDCDC shall provide non-identifying context sufficient to inform readers (e.g., role category, proximity to events) without enabling re-identification.
5.4.1 IDCDC shall publish supporting documents and data where lawful and safe. Where disclosure is unsafe, IDCDC shall publish an evidence posture note describing what was reviewed, what cannot be shown, and why.
5.4.2 Each major output shall include: sources used; method summary; limitations; and what remains unknown.
5.5.1 Data collection must be minimized, purpose-bound, and consent-sensitive.
5.5.2 Individual-level exposure is prohibited unless legally required, explicitly consented, and safety-cleared; Restricted handling is the default for any personal identifiers.
5.5.3 IDCDC shall avoid storing biometric identifiers, precise location histories, and metadata that increases doxxing risk unless necessity is documented and protections are heightened.
5.6.1 IDCDC shall screen for forgeries, deepfakes, coordinated inauthentic behavior, bot amplification, document tampering, and state/faction laundering.
5.6.2 High-manipulation-risk narratives require enhanced verification, delayed publication, or publication framed as “unverified claim under review” only when public interest demands visibility and risk controls are applied.
5.7.1 IDCDC shall clearly differentiate: measured facts, modeled estimates, and interpretive analysis.
5.7.2 Methods for indicators and dashboards must be documented with sampling posture, confidence limitations, and correction pathways.
5.7.3 Attempts to manipulate baselines, dashboards, or measurement outcomes are integrity breaches.
6.1.1 Each publication shall include: purpose; scope; definitions; method summary; evidence posture; limitations; handling posture where relevant; and a version identifier.
6.1.2 Writing shall be precise, fair, and intelligible; conclusions must follow the evidence actually presented.
6.2.1 Publications shall be accessible: summaries for non-specialists, readable visuals, captions, and basic accessibility features.
6.2.2 Translations must preserve meaning and evidentiary posture. Translated versions are subject to review; mistranslation that changes claims is treated as an error requiring correction.
6.3.1 Every publication must undergo independent review by at least one qualified editor/fact-checker who is not the primary author.
6.3.2 High-risk publications require additional gates: independent fact-check lead review and safety/legal review where triggered.
6.3.3 Reviewers are obligated to challenge weak claims, demand supporting evidence, and require uncertainty markers.
6.4.1 IDCDC shall not conceal material information that contradicts its analysis or conclusions.
6.4.2 Uncertainty shall be stated plainly. Overstatement and insinuation are prohibited.
6.5.1 Where serious allegations are made against individuals or institutions, IDCDC shall offer a meaningful opportunity to respond, except where doing so creates credible safety risk, compromises an active investigation, or enables retaliation.
6.5.2 Responses shall be represented fairly; selective distortion is prohibited.
6.6.1 Errors shall be corrected promptly with prominence proportional to the original claim’s prominence and potential harm.
6.6.2 Corrections shall state: what was wrong, what is corrected, why it changed, whether conclusions changed, and effective date/time.
6.6.3 Supersession preserves history: prior versions remain labeled and retrievable per handling rules to prevent misinformation persistence and to preserve institutional accountability.
6.7.1 IDCDC may redact, restrict, or de-index content where credible safety threats emerge (doxxing vectors, retaliatory targeting), while preserving internal records and providing a public explanation where safe.
6.7.2 Takedown is not permitted for donor appeasement, factional pressure, or reputational laundering. Each such action must be recorded with justification and subject to oversight.
7.1.1 Donors, sponsors, partners, and factions shall have no control over editorial agenda, hiring, credentialing, investigations, publication, corrections, or records.
7.1.2 Any attempt to exert such control constitutes a reportable integrity incident and may trigger refusal of funding or termination of partnership.
7.2.1 IDCDC shall disclose significant donations and contributions above an established threshold, subject to safety-cleared redactions. Anonymous donations shall be disclosed as anonymous.
7.2.2 Funding sources shall be screened for beneficial control, sanctions risk, hidden influence, and reputational laundering.
7.3.1 All editorial participants must disclose material conflicts: financial interests, organizational affiliations, close personal ties, political or factional roles, and any relationship that could reasonably appear to bias coverage.
7.3.2 Conflicts are managed through recusals, role restrictions, public disclosures, or exclusion.
7.3.3 Non-disclosure or concealment is sanctionable.
7.4.1 No donor may condition support on altering methods, suppressing coverage, shaping conclusions, selecting targets, or granting preferential platform access.
7.4.2 IDCDC may quarantine, refuse, return, or ring-fence funding that threatens independence or safety.
7.5.1 Editorial procurement shall be documented, conflict-controlled, and auditable.
7.5.2 Vendors shall not access Restricted materials absent explicit authorization, handling controls, and contract safeguards.
7.5.3 Vendor selection may not be influenced by donors or factions; violations are misconduct.
8.1.1 IDCDC cooperates with other media and institutions only where doing so increases public benefit, safety, or reach without compromising independence.
8.1.2 Cooperation agreements must include: meaning-preservation, source protection, confidentiality, correction coordination, non-endorsement, attribution rules, and termination rights for breach.
8.2.1 Partners may receive access to primary materials strictly for fact-checking under confidentiality, and never in a way that exposes anonymous sources.
8.2.2 Any partner demand to reveal anonymous sources or Restricted methods triggers termination.
8.3.1 Partners may not edit in ways that distort meaning, remove caveats, alter evidentiary posture, or change conclusions by omission.
8.3.2 IDCDC retains final approval for any version published under its name or that uses its marks.
8.4.1 IDCDC credits original work; plagiarism and appropriation are prohibited.
8.4.2 Licensing shall be explicit. Open licensing is preferred where safe; controlled licensing applies where misuse risk exists.
8.4.3 Use of IDCDC materials to imply endorsement is misrepresentation and subject to enforcement.
9.1.1 AI tools may be used for drafting assistance, translation support, formatting, and summarization of non-sensitive materials only when handling rules are respected.
9.1.2 AI output is never evidence. It must be independently checked and treated as unverified until validated.
9.2.1 No Restricted sources, confidential identities, sensitive evidence logs, or unpublished investigation details may be entered into third-party AI systems without explicit authorization and an approved secure environment.
9.2.2 AI shall not be used to fabricate quotes, create synthetic “evidence,” or generate plausible-sounding claims without verification.
9.2.3 AI shall not be used to infer identity, location, or personal attributes, nor to support doxxing or targeting.
9.3.1 Where AI use is material to reader trust (e.g., translation assistance), IDCDC may disclose such use without exposing protected data.
9.3.2 A named human editor remains accountable for every claim, limitation, correction, and safety posture.
10.1.1 All materials are classified as Public, Controlled, or Restricted, with least-privilege access and least-disclosure distribution.
10.1.2 Restricted includes: source identities, raw evidence, internal risk notes, investigation plans, security procedures, whistleblower submissions, and any content that materially increases exposure.
10.2.1 IDCDC shall provide protected reporting channels, anonymity options where necessary, role-based attribution, anti-doxxing enforcement, and risk-screened convening.
10.2.2 Participation shall not require unnecessary personal data. Identity verification, when required, must be proportionate and safety-cleared.
10.3.1 IDCDC collects only what is necessary for membership and operational integrity; it does not monetize personal data.
10.3.2 Retention shall be bounded by necessity and risk: sensitive identifiers and metadata are retained only when required and are access-controlled.
10.4.1 IDCDC shall maintain: MFA, encrypted storage for Restricted materials, role-based access controls, secure document handling, incident logging, and continuity planning.
10.4.2 Security requirements scale with sensitivity; high-risk teams shall conduct periodic drills and access reviews.
10.5.1 IDCDC publishes methods and outcomes to the maximum safe extent.
10.5.2 Where disclosure creates credible risk, IDCDC publishes redacted summaries and preserves internal audit trails, enabling later correction and accountability without endangering persons.
11.1.1 Editorial work is subject to independent integrity oversight: ethics/conflicts, donor integrity, safeguards/ombudsperson, and method/statistics protection.
11.1.2 Interference with method, suppression of corrections, donor steering, retaliation against internal dissent, or safety negligence is sanctionable misconduct.
11.2.1 IDCDC shall maintain accessible channels for corrections requests and complaints, and shall respond within defined timelines subject to safety constraints.
11.2.2 Complaints shall receive a reasoned response stating: assessment, action taken (correction, clarification, refusal with reasons), and record of decision.
11.3.1 Adverse actions (sanctions, de-credentialing, takedowns, access restrictions) require notice, reasons, evidence summary as safely possible, right to respond, and an appeal pathway.
11.3.2 Appeal bodies must be conflict-screened and must issue reasoned decisions.
11.4.1 Good-faith reporting of misconduct, manipulation, donor interference, retaliation, or safety breaches is protected.
11.4.2 Retaliation is a high-severity offense and triggers disciplinary action.
12.1.1 Compliance with this Policy is a condition of editorial authority, credentialing, and publication access under IDCDC.
12.1.2 Chapters, Colleges, and partners must adopt this Policy’s minima as a condition of recognition or cooperation.
12.2.1 Misconduct includes: fabrication; plagiarism; undisclosed conflicts; donor influence; reckless exposure of sources; doxxing; harassment; retaliation; evidence tampering; distortion by omission; intimidation; and misuse of IDCDC marks.
12.3.1 Sanctions may include:
(a) written warning and corrective plan;
(b) suspension of publishing or participation rights;
(c) removal or de-credentialing;
(d) funding quarantine and procurement exclusion;
(e) permanent exclusion; and
(f) public correction notice where safe.
12.3.2 Sanctions shall be proportionate, documented, and subject to due process clocks.
12.4.1 Where credible harm risk exists, the Safeguards function may impose temporary protective measures: publication hold, access restriction, identity masking, or distribution freeze.
12.4.2 Emergency measures must be time-bounded, recorded, rapidly reviewed, and appealable.
13.1.1 IDCDC maintains disciplined recordkeeping: evidence logs, decision records, conflict disclosures, review notes, and correction/supersession history, each governed by handling class.
13.1.2 Records discipline preserves continuity across leadership changes and prevents institutional amnesia and manipulation.
13.2.1 Major outputs shall have version identifiers and change notes. Silent substantive edits are prohibited.
13.2.2 Superseded outputs remain preserved with clear labeling and internal provenance, subject to safe access controls.
13.3.1 Retention periods shall be defined by sensitivity and necessity.
13.3.2 Disposal of sensitive materials must be documented with a disposition record.
13.3.3 Legal holds shall be applied when credible legal risk exists; access is restricted and custody is documented.
14.1.1 IDCDC communications shall not be used to imply endorsements, authorizations, or representations beyond what is explicitly granted in writing.
14.1.2 Partner references to IDCDC must include non-endorsement language and are revocable for misrepresentation.
14.2.1 IDCDC will publish methods, funding disclosures, and institutional practices to the maximum safe extent, while preventing exposure of vulnerable individuals and operational security details.
14.2.2 When redaction is required, IDCDC shall publish the reason for redaction and preserve internal audit trails.
14.3.1 IDCDC treats trust as a constitutional asset: earned by accuracy, independence, fairness, safety, and correction discipline.
14.3.2 Any conduct that knowingly erodes trust—fabrication, concealment, donor steering, retaliatory behavior, or safety negligence—constitutes a governance-level integrity breach.