Editorial policy

Outlet: LondonLocal.news. Publisher: OCN Technology Ltd (Open Council Network). Applies to all content we publish — on LondonLocal.news, Reddit, TikTok, email, and any other channel we use.

This page sets out what London Local is for, who is accountable for what we publish, and the standards we hold ourselves to. You can judge our journalism against it.

1. Our dual mission

London Local has two missions. Both are significant. Each has a single leader internally who is responsible for that mission.

As a paper

We exist to bring an understanding of local government to people who do not usually get one — particularly young people, and anyone who rarely has the chance to engage with local government. We want to build engagement with local democracy, and to return a sense of agency and shared community to people who feel that government happens to them, rather than with or for them.

If we succeed as a paper, more Londoners — especially younger Londoners — will understand what their councils decide, trust local institutions a little more because those institutions are legible, and feel able to take part in democratic life.

As a secondary effect, we seek to foster a sense of community around shared stories at a local level, and so improve the cohesion of London and the bond between its residents.

As an experiment

We exist to explore what can be done at the extremes: pushing AI’s involvement in journalism as far as technology allows, while keeping the focus on the quality of content, deep engagement, and community around shared, meaningful stories — not on clicks and attention.

We expect much of what we try to fail, and we are fine with that. We expect to run many experiments. We work in the open, and we will publish a blueprint of what we learn. We also expect much of what we do to succeed — and those successes should push the boundaries of what is possible in public-interest journalism.

If we succeed as an experiment, this becomes a blueprint others can replicate across the UK: a set of tools that can be used to produce sustainable public-interest journalism in any region, with experiments that are public and usable by other publications.

2. Who we are and what we cover

London Local is a digital local news outlet for Greater London, operated by OCN Technology Ltd. We report on London’s 32 boroughs and the City of London, and on related public institutions, focusing on council meetings, decisions, planning, licensing, budgets, services, and other matters of public interest rooted in the local public record.

We are not a general London newsroom. We do not chase crime, lifestyle, or national politics for traffic. We aim to complement community and hyperlocal titles that do deeper human reporting, not to displace them.

3. Editorial leadership and accountability

All our content is under direct editorial control of a single editor.

Named person responsible for publishing decisions: Toby Abel, Founder and Director, OCN Technology Ltd — toby@opencouncil.network.

Toby Abel currently decides what is published and how it is presented, including approvals, edits, rejections, and corrections.

4. Editorial independence

Editorial decisions are made in the interests of readers and of our dual mission — not for advertisers, sponsors, funders, political organisations, public authorities, or personal interests.

• No partnership, membership, platform payment, or sponsorship can trigger, change or remove a story.
• Paid-for, sponsored, and partnership material is clearly labelled so readers can tell it apart from independent journalism.
• If commercial and editorial interests conflict, editorial interests are always paramount.
• Where possible, we will seek to separate the people who have editorial control from those who have direct contact with commercial decisions.

5. Accuracy, sourcing, and fairness

We take all reasonable care to ensure what we publish is accurate and not misleading. We distinguish fact, opinion, and conjecture.

Primary sources. We prefer the public record: council agendas, minutes, reports, recordings, decisions, and other official documents. Press releases and secondary claims are treated as claims, not as settled fact, until checked.

What this journalism is — and is not. Much of our reporting starts from the public record. It is civic information made clear and shareable. It is not a substitute for every form of journalism.

Attribution. Quotes and statements are attributed accurately. We do not invent quotes, motives, or visual facts.

Right of reply. Anyone facing significant criticism or allegation in our coverage should have a fair chance to respond before publication where reasonably possible. If they decline or do not respond in time, we will indicate as such.

Balance. Where a decision is contested, we cover the real arguments in proportion to the evidence. We do not manufacture false balance.

Higher-risk stories. Topics with elevated risk of causing harm get slower, more careful human scrutiny — or are held — even if that reduces speed or volume.

6. Use of artificial intelligence

AI is central to how London Local works. That is intentional: the experiment is to push AI’s involvement as far as technology allows, in search of high quality journalism at scale.

AI may assist with research, story selection, drafting, imagery, quotes, fact-checking, production, headline selection, and any other step in the journalistic process.

The Editor is accountable for the output. AI is a tool. Any error introduced or missed by AI is treated as an error of the Editor (or of the named publish-authority person), exactly as if a human had written every word. “The AI got it wrong” is never an excuse we offer readers, subjects, or regulators.

Hard rules:

• No unsupervised auto-publish. A named human must approve what goes out.
• We do not invent quotes, people, events, or visual detail that is not supported by evidence.
• AI-generated or AI-assisted imagery must not present fiction as a photograph of reality. Where imagery is illustrative or synthetic, we take care not to mislead.
• Known failure modes — including misattribution and invented detail — are treated as editorial risks to catch before publish, not as acceptable costs of speed.

We will be open about how we use AI. As the experiment develops, we may refine disclosures and practices; this policy will be updated when we do.

7. Voice, formats, and audience

We write in clear language that closes the distance between people and local government. We care about a sense of place: London, and its constituent boroughs.

The same story may appear as a full article on LondonLocal.news, a short Reddit post, a short-form video and/or in other formats. Accuracy standards are the same on every channel.

We optimise for understanding, engagement, and shared community around public-interest stories.

Whilst we are interested in increasing our reach and engagement, we are not interested in doing so at the cost of the quality of our reporting. Where the editorial decision is between publishing a more accurate story, or one that will drive more engagement, we will always side with accuracy.

8. Corrections

If we get something wrong, we correct it promptly and clearly and own our failures. We do not quietly rewrite stories to remove errors and hope nobody notices.

Significant corrections are noted on the corrected piece, stating what changed and when. Persistent or serious errors are reviewed so we can change how we work.

9. Conflicts of interest

Anyone involved in producing or approving content declares relevant personal, financial, or professional interests. Where a conflict exists, they do not take the publish decision on that story. For a small team, conflicts involving the named publish-authority person are handled with particular care — including stepping back from the decision where needed.

Our parent company also produces software for local councils. For this reason, we are separating editorial control from commercial operations so that our founder cannot control what we publish.

10. Complaints

If you believe we have fallen short of this policy, email community@opencouncil.network (or the Editor named above once appointed) with the URL or description of the content and what you think is wrong.

We will acknowledge complaints and look into them promptly. Where we are wrong, we will correct the record.

We voluntarily follow the Editors’ Code of Practice as a floor for our standards. We are not currently members of IPSO or Impress; if that changes, this page will say so and explain how complaints can be escalated.

11. Working in the open

Because the experimental mission is public, we expect scrutiny. We will publish a blueprint documenting what we built, what failed, what worked, and what others can reuse. Feedback that helps us improve quality, trust, or democratic utility is welcome.

12. Review of this policy

This policy is reviewed at least annually, and whenever our structure, publish authority, AI practices, or commercial model change in a material way. The date at the top will be updated when it is.