On July 21, The Picton Gazette released a prominently featured “Code of Ethics,” outlining its commitment to transparency, fairness, and accountability. The document—adapted from the Canadian Newspaper Association—reads like a model of principled journalism. It pledges to acknowledge mistakes, invite reply from those criticized, and maintain editorial independence from commercial interests.
The problem? Almost none of it is meaningfully implemented.
While the Gazette’s code asserts that “we acknowledge our mistakes as soon and as clearly as possible,” a search across the newspaper’s online archive reveals no corrections section, no public record of factual errors, and no visible mechanism for submitting or tracking amendments. For a paper that claims to be “the public record,” the absence of even basic correction practices is more than an oversight—it’s a credibility gap.
The Right to Reply—But Not in Practice
Perhaps more troubling is the Gazette’s selective approach to fairness. In its July 16 editorial, “County Fake,” the paper attacked CountyFirst.ca with sweeping claims about funding, anonymity, and alleged AI-generated disinformation. But the editorial never contacted CountyFirst, nor offered an opportunity for rebuttal or clarification.
This directly contradicts the Gazette’s promise that “those affected [by published material] are given an opportunity to reply.” When a publication uses its platform to criticize community members—especially those offering competing civic perspectives—ethical journalism demands more than one-sided commentary.
Where’s the Line Between News and Advertising?
The Gazette also pledges to “clearly distinguish news reports… and materials produced for and by advertisers.” Yet its real estate and tourism coverage often lacks clear “sponsored content” labeling, despite showcasing specific businesses. In 2025, these subtle forms of embedded advertising require transparency, not blurred lines.
A Strong Code—Now Put It to Work
To its credit, The Picton Gazette does produce accurate, balanced reporting in many areas. Coverage of council decisions, community events, and public infrastructure generally adheres to journalistic standards. But when it comes to living out its own ethics in areas where credibility is earned—not claimed, the Gazette still has work to do.
Recommendations
If The Picton Gazette is serious about living up to its Code of Ethics, it should take the following immediate steps:
- Launch a public “Corrections & Clarifications” page with visible updates.
- Offer a formal “Right of Reply” policy, especially for editorial targets.
- Tag all advertorial or sponsored content with consistent labels.
- Disclose any commercial, political, or funding conflicts of interest.
- Appoint a reader advocate or editorial ombudsperson.
A Code of Ethics is only as strong as the accountability mechanisms that enforce it. Right now, The Picton Gazette is trading on promises without the follow-through. If trust is the cornerstone of local journalism—and it is—then transparency must be more than a tagline.
It must be practiced.