Trust is built on transparency. This page explains the standards, sources and editorial processes that underpin every article on Hauptreport, and how you can hold us to account if something seems wrong.
What sources does Hauptreport rely on?
We use primary sources, official documents, verified eyewitness accounts and named experts wherever possible. Anonymous sourcing is rare and only permitted when the information is of clear public interest and the source’s identity is known to at least one editor.
Our reporters consult Swedish government databases (Riksdagen, Regeringskansliet, Statistiska Centralbyrån), EU institutions, official registers, court rulings, academic studies and reputable media archives. For economic and financial stories, we draw on central bank data, stock exchange filings and recognised economic research institutes. All sources are evaluated for recency, credibility and potential bias before inclusion. When we cannot verify a claim independently, we make that limitation explicit in the article.
Advertising or commercial relationships never determine which sources we use or how we present them. Our Advertising & Affiliate Disclosure explains how we separate revenue from editorial decisions, and the Sponsored Content Policy sets out the labelling rules for commercial material.
Who is responsible for what we publish?
Our editor-in-chief, Michael Schulte, holds ultimate editorial authority for all content on the site. Each story is assigned to a named writer, reviewed by an editor and fact-checked before publication.
The team structure is set out on our Our Team page. Jessica Wolff, as newsroom chief (Redaktionschef), oversees daily coverage and headline review. Tim Wolf handles politics from the Riksdag down to municipal government. Sarah Huber covers economy and markets. Sebastian Frank leads culture, lifestyle and society reporting. Melanie Winter is responsible for fact-checking, source verification and corrections. Every team member can be contacted directly via the email addresses listed on the relevant page, and we encourage readers to reach out with questions about specific articles.
AI-assisted tools may support research, drafting or formatting, but no content is published without human editorial approval. Our AI & Automation Policy details the guardrails in place.
How do we handle mistakes and corrections?
We correct factual errors promptly and transparently. When an error is identified – by a reader, a source or our own team – we update the article and add a correction note explaining what changed and why.
All corrections are logged and reviewed by Melanie Winter, our fact-checking lead, who also manages the Fact-Checking Policy. Minor typographical fixes are made without notice, but any material change to a claim, figure, quote or headline requires a visible correction statement at the top or bottom of the article. If the error is significant enough to affect the article’s overall accuracy, we may retract the piece entirely and publish a retraction notice. Readers can report potential errors to our corrections desk at corrections@hauptreport.de or via our Corrections Policy page.
We also maintain a public corrections log, which is available on request. Our commitment to accountability means we do not bury mistakes or wait for external pressure to act.
What you can expect from us
Every article on Hauptreport is the product of a named writer, an editor and a fact-checker. We aim for clarity, balance and independence, and we label all opinion, sponsored and affiliate content clearly.
We do not publish unverified rumours, fabricated quotes, or content produced solely by artificial intelligence. Each piece is reviewed by a human editor before it goes live. Our editorial mission is to help readers understand Swedish news and current affairs without spin or oversimplification. That means we prioritise context over speed, and we will correct our record when we get something wrong. We also provide a clear process for readers to challenge our reporting, as described below.
For a full breakdown of our editorial principles, see the Editorial Policy. For details on how we fund our journalism, the Ownership & Funding page explains our revenue streams and the firewall between commercial and editorial teams.
How can readers challenge our reporting?
If you believe an article contains a factual error, an omission that misleads, or a breach of our editorial standards, you can submit a challenge via our Complaints Procedure. We take all complaints seriously and respond within five working days.
Your complaint should specify the article URL, the exact issue and the evidence you rely on. If the matter concerns a factual claim, include your source or reasoning. Melanie Winter’s team reviews all complaints, and if an error is confirmed, they will correct it and explain the change. If we disagree with your assessment, we will give a reasoned explanation. Unresolved complaints may be escalated to the editor-in-chief, whose decision is final. We do not charge for filing a complaint, and there is no penalty for raising a good-faith concern.
You can also contact us directly via the relevant team member using the emails listed on our Contact page. For general editorial feedback, use editorial@hauptreport.de. For tip-offs or document leaks, see Tip Us.
Questions or concerns?
For anything not covered on this page – whether about our standards, a specific article, or how we operate – the best starting point is our general contact address at info@hauptreport.de. Your message will be forwarded to the right person.
If you have a complaint about a possible breach of our Safeguarding Minors Policy or wish to request a takedown under our Copyright & Takedown Policy, please use the dedicated email addresses listed on those pages. We are committed to responding promptly and clearly to every legitimate inquiry.