What guides our editorial work
Our starting point is simple: political writing should explain institutions, ideas and events without telling anyone how to vote or who to support. We focus on public life in South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana and Zambia, with attention to how constitutions, legislatures, elections, courts, parties and civil society shape outcomes. The aim is clarity, not persuasion.
We look at issues such as executive power, coalition politics, devolution, public accountability, protests, corruption controls and media freedom. Where a topic is contested, we describe the main positions in plain language and note where the evidence is uncertain.
Keeping commentary non partisan and evidence led
We do not endorse parties, candidates or political blocs. Our commentary may criticise policy choices, institutions or political behaviour, but it must stay grounded in general knowledge and verifiable public information. We avoid slogans, campaign language and language that treats one side as the only reasonable view.
- We separate analysis from opinion so the audience can see what is fact, what is interpretation and what is background.
- We avoid claims about named living politicians unless they are directly relevant to a public record that can be checked.
- We do not make election predictions or offer tactical voting advice.
- We use neutral wording for competing views, even when the subject is tense or controversial.
How episodes and essays are developed
Each episode or essay begins with a question that matters to civic understanding, such as how a legislature works, why constitutional checks matter, or what changes when a country shifts to a new electoral system. From there, the team plans the angle, reviews background material and decides which historical context is needed so the piece does not feel thin or rushed.
Our workflow includes topic selection, outline drafting, research support, script development, editing and publication scheduling. For audio, we also do episode editing and audio mastering so the final output is clear in a car, on a phone or while commuting between Johannesburg, Pretoria or Soweto.
Source use, fact checking and corrections
We rely on public records, official documents, legislation, court material, reputable reporting and established background knowledge. If a point needs more than one source, we check it more than once. Where figures or dates are used, they must be accurate, current where possible, and explained in context. We do not invent quotes, interviews, guests, polls or statistics.
Before publication, content is reviewed for factual errors, tone and internal consistency. If a mistake slips through, we correct it as soon as practical and update the text or audio notes where needed. Honest correction matters because trust is built over time, not by pretending nothing went wrong.
- Check the claim against at least one reliable public source.
- Confirm names, dates, institutions and geographic references.
- Review the language for partisanship, exaggeration or unclear phrasing.
- Mark corrections clearly when a factual issue is found.
How we handle essays, explainers and archive material
Our essays and explainers set out how political systems function. That means defining terms, setting out historical background and showing how institutions interact over time. We avoid jargon where plain language will do, and when a technical term is needed we explain it. The goal is useful context, not academic posturing.
Archive management is part of this work too. We keep series notes, publication records and supporting material organised so earlier work can be revisited without confusion. If a topic returns months later, we check whether the political context has changed before reusing any background. A rule that made sense in one period may need fresh explanation in another.
How you can use this policy when reading or listening
If you are following our work from Rosebank, Johannesburg or from elsewhere in Gauteng, Nairobi, Lagos, Accra or Lusaka, this policy helps you know what to expect. Treat each episode or essay as a guide to the issue, not a party line. If a piece raises a strong argument, look for the reasoning behind it, the evidence used and the limits we have set around it.
You can also use the policy as a check on the content itself. Ask whether the piece explains the institution, not just the personalities; whether it separates facts from interpretation; and whether it gives enough background for a reader who is new to the subject. If something is unclear, you are welcome to send an enquiry through the contact page so the team can review it.
- Look for context before judgement.
- Separate historical explanation from current commentary.
- Check whether the piece stays within non-partisan ground.
- Use the contact form if you spot a factual concern or need clarification.
