Editorial Integrity and Accuracy

Our reporting needs to be grounded in verifiable and accurate information, and should be clearly and accessibly communicated to our audience. Therefore, editorial integrity and accuracy are non-negotiable core tenets of our Code of Ethics. This applies to all of our reporting, including articles under Dispatch.

Accuracy and Verification

Accuracy is VIA’s highest obligation because readers rely on us for information that can shape how they travel. Therefore, factual claims are required to be verified to the greatest extent reasonably possible before publication. For fast-moving information that is subject to change, such as pricing structures, border requirements, or airline route launches, we will clearly publish the date of publication and include a note highlighting the possibility of later revisions.

Headline and Framing Standards

Another part of our approach to accuracy involves distinguishing carefully between confirmed facts, our own analysis, and speculation. Estimates and forecasts must be labeled as such as should not be presented with false certainty. We will not publish misleading headlines, claims, or selective framing that is designed to create attention instead of getting at the truth. When errors occur, we will correct them promptly and transparently (more in our Corrections policy).

A headline or claim is misleading when it creates a false or distorted impression that’s not supported by the reporting itself. This includes, but is not limited to, presenting limited evidence as a universal truth, omitting material context, or exaggerating the certainty or scale of a particular industry development. We include some examples:

“Europe is Closing Its Borders to Student”

This would be a misleading headline or claim to make when only one country in the Schengen Zone has announced a temporary visa regime review as it exaggerates the scale or scope of a particular country’s development.

“With Spirit’s Exit, Budget Airlines Are Officially Dead”

This headline is misleading because it treats Spirit Airlines’ market exit as evidence that the entire budget airline industry is ‘dead,’ which isn’t true. The loaded word choice also falsely implies an emotional, definitive, final conclusion.

Source Integrity, Attribution

VIA will attribute information only to credible sources that can be clearly named and identified. Other examples of sources include: official documents, open-source data (when used responsibly), and remarks that are on the record. The main aim is that readers can understand our rationale behind why we used the sources in question. Thus, we will often include the source’s credentials and expertise when introducing their insights into our official output.

We prioritize primary sources when reporting changes that will affect travel decisions. For instance, when reporting on visa rules or entry requirements, we prioritize official government travel advisories, embassy notices, or formally published agency guidance whenever available. Therefore, we avoid relying on “rumored,” “insider,” or unattributed claims that cannot be reasonably verified.

Fast-Changing and Dynamic Information

Many forms of travel information change quickly, such as prices, routes, visa policies, etc. Readers should therefore be able to understand when practical information was gathered and whether it may now differ. Articles containing logistical information should indicate when the contributor traveled, when prices were recorded, and when was the last time this information was checked. For example, “transit information current as of April 2026” would be an appropriate phrase to include. Where material information is likely outdated, VIA should update the piece (see Corrections and Updates policy), add a visible note, or archive it if it is no longer reliable.

It is also worth noting that travel pricing is often dynamic. Wherever possible, contributors should provide ranges and context rather than standalone figures. For instance, it’s more accurate to say that hostel beds commonly range from $50-70 dollars a night during peak travel season in Northern Vietnam than to state that “hostels cost $60 in June.” Likewise, contributors should note airfare prices and when they booked them since a round-trip airfare booked four months in advance is likely cheaper than if it was booked a week in advance of a particular trip.

We should also distinguish between base price and total price. Baggage fees, booking fees, city taxes, cleaning fees, resort charges, ancillary costs, currency conversion fees, and other surcharges can alter the real cost of travel. For example, a cheap flight ticket to a location may only allow you to bring a personal item onboard, with no carry-ons and checked luggage, and no possibility of seat selection or refund/rebooking. It is always better to note down the conditions and rules of each pricing option when booked.

Reporting Integrity

When contributors report from their respective destinations, they should represent conditions honestly and proportionately. A single bad taxi ride does not mean that the entire city is unsafe. At the same time, one friendly interaction does not necessarily mean the whole local population is uniquely hospitable. Keep in mind that travelers often experience fragments of places which do not represent the entire picture.

Contributors should also distinguish between anecdote and pattern, as broader claims about a particular location are often not supported by evidence. Claims about a certain destination–such as ones concerning safety, cost, or overtourism–should be supported by detailed observations and insights from local sources. Contributors must not manufacture experiences of observations for content, as that would constitute a misrepresentation of local communities. As a key rule, contributors should treat new destinations and its peoples with humility and open-mindedness. Good travel writing involves an acknowledgement of one’s own assumptions and gaps in knowledge.

Anonymity

Anonymous sourcing may be considered only in truly exceptional circumstances where there is a clear public-interest rationale, where the source faces legitimate risk, and where information can be independently corroborated by other sources. The burden for granting anonymity is high because readers deserve transparency, but there are times where withholding a name would better serve the public interest.

One example of a case where anonymous sourcing is warranted include airline employees or ground staff revealing undisclosed safety-reporting failures and are fearing retaliation for their jobs. In such cases, the information clearly concerns public safety and therefore is well within the public interest. At the same time, employees who speak openly can face termination and blacklisting within the industry. If their claims can be verified through internal documents or other witnesses, then granting anonymity may be justified.

Expert Sources

When reporting on industry trends, we require that stories include multiple expert perspectives whenever feasible. For our purposes, expert sources include individuals with substantial professional experience in the relevant industry or, more concretely, those holding a Master’s degree or above in a field directly relevant to the subject matter. Examples of expert sources include aviation analysts, tourism researchers, hospitality executives, etc. This all aids in our mission to make our reporting more accessible to our audience.

Data and Statistics Standards

We may report on fares, rankings, tourism, or other trends across the industry that involves statistics and data. Because numbers can strongly shape a reader’s perception, we need to treat data with the same seriousness as any other source.

We will make every effort to use reputable, transparent, and methodologically robust sources. This can include official government statistics agencies, border authorities, international organizations, or academic research. We will identify the source of the important statistics so that readers can understand where the information comes from.

Numbers must be presented in context. A percentage increase without a baseline or a ranking without explaining its methodology can mislead readers even if technically accurate. Some key context markers include what is being measured, over what time period, compared to any particular benchmark. For example, a statement that claims that “tourism in Vietnam has risen by 40%” would need to clarify whether this reflects post-pandemic recovery, seasonal differences, or whether there is some long-term change that explains this particular statistic.

When making conclusions about the relationship between one variable and another (such as visitor count and rent prices), contributors must use the relevant statistical tests (t-tests for observational data, among other tests) to ascertain whether there is a statistically significant relationship. If there is a significant relationship, contributors must make every effort to compare such findings with that for a control group and isolate the supposed “causal” or “correlating” variable.

We need to also pay attention to rankings and lists, as relative terms like “best,” “cheapest,” or “most powerful” depend heavily on the particular outlet’s chosen criteria. When we cite rankings, we should identify who produced them and the methodology behind these rankings wherever relevant. Importantly, we must not treat these subjective lists as objective facts, and scrutinize lists that may be primarily promotional or lack transparent selection criteria.

Charts, graphics, or tables would need to reflect the data. Our visuals must not distort the scale or misleadingly truncate axes. Our graphs must show the origin (0, or some other benchmark), and use accurate statistical notation to illustrate truncation or other display choices. Our visuals must also not selectively omit relevant categories to place any particular emphasis on a particular variable. In other words, we must endeavor to illustrate the data to our reader as it has been originally presented. And lastly, where data

is uncertain or incomplete, we should plainly acknowledge those gaps in our article, and explain to our readers why it matters.

Visuals and Photography Standards, Attribution

Images, videos, maps, charts, or other graphics should be treated as any other editorial content and needs to meet the same standards as written reporting. All visuals used by VIA should be properly attributed whenever required or appropriate. We will respect international copyright, licensing agreements and laws and respect creators’ rights and platform terms of use. If using graphics from an independent creator, we will compensate the creator for the commercial use of their work. We will not use third-party visuals without permission, license, or justification for why it adheres to fair-use laws.

Graphics would also need to have a clear caption that addresses the subject of the photo. We must not use visuals or graphics that distort reality. Examples can include showing empty locations to imply that it is uncrowded during a particular travel season, or over-editing photos to exaggerate beaches, sunsets, or skylines.

Basic edits such as cropping, exposure correction, or color balancing are generally acceptable if they do not alter the reality of the subject matter. Edits that remove or add objects and elements to the photo, including those that alter body appearance, are unacceptable.

Photos or videos from our reporters, travelers, or creators should be verified before use when they are presented as documentation of an event, trend, disruption, or other relevant subject matter. Viral imagery, alone by itself, should not be treated as sufficient proof. We must seek permission when required and credit creators and authors appropriately.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools may help our reporters in the reporting process, but they must never replace editorial judgment or core reporting standards. Every published piece remains the responsibility of our human editors and writers, regardless of the tools used during its development.

AI tools may be used for limited support functions, such as transcription assistance, formatting, idea organization, workflow efficiency, or data sorting. Though these uses can help our reporters operate more effectively–particularly when handling large volumes of notes, documents, or multilingual material–the responsibility still lies with the writer or editor to verify the accuracy of AI output.

We ask that when reporters/editors use AI tools during the process, that they inform their immediate supervisor (e.g. reporters to their designated editor, editor to their section manager, etc.) so that their AI use will be held to high accountability standards.

With this said, however, we will not tolerate using AI-generated material as a substitute for original reporting, interviews, or fact verification. We will not publish fabricated, unverified, or hallucinated claims. Any AI-assisted output that materially informs a story must be reviewed by multiple human editors, and all factual elements must be independently sourced before publication. Artificially generated images or illustrations are not tolerated. We must not be using AI-generated images to depict real events, destinations, or people as if they were authentic photos.

Corrections and Updates

Because travel information changes quickly, and also because mistakes can tangibly impact readers’ planning choices, VIA treats corrections and updates as core responsibilities. We must acknowledge errors clearly, fixing them promptly, and making sure that our readers are not left with outdated information.

When a factual error is identified, either through internal review or flagged by a reader through one of our official feedback outlets, we will correct it as soon as it is reasonably possible after verification. Corrections should fix the record directly, alongside a clear Correction Note displayed at the beginning of the article. The note will explain what was wrong and what has been changed. Minor syntactical errors or grammatical fixes that do not alter meaning may be corrected without a formal note; however, errors that affect substance or context will require transparency.

Updates are distinct from corrections, as an update will occur when previously accurate information has been changed after publication. Examples include revised visa requirements, new fees, new safety advisories, etc. In such cases, we would revise the article and note that information has been updated along with a clearly displayed date of update. VIA will make reasonable efforts to review time-sensitive content periodically; Dispatch’s guides that contain outdated material information should either be updated, labeled as outdated, or removed if no longer reliable. This is up to the discretion of the relevant reporter and editor. Readers are not expected to distinguish current advice from outdated content on their own.

We welcome credible correction requests from readers, experts, companies, and public authorities. Requests should be reviewed fairly and without hostility. A challenge to our reporting is not an attack on editorial independence, but instead an opportunity for us to be able to improve and take lessons on the accuracy of our reporting instead!

Community Feedback Mechanism

VIA will maintain a publicly available community feedback form where readers can choose to anonymously submit concerns, including factual correction requests, outdated information alerts, or concerns regarding undisclosed sponsorship, accessibility, privacy, and harmful portrayals of communities and cultures. These channels will be prominently displayed at the end of each article and on the homepage.

Where feedback concerns factual accuracy or outdated information that can be verified, we will review promptly and update or correct materials where warranted (with the appropriate note included and featured prominently). Where complaints concern tone, fairness, or cultural sensitivity, editors should assess whether additional context or revision is appropriate.

We also recognize that local residents may identify harms that outsiders overlook. Feedback from those directly affected by coverage deserves our serious consideration, especially in cases involving overtourism, stereotyping, or the misrepresentation of local harms. In these cases, we will make every effort to reach out to the communities affected and enter into a dialogue on how we can better our articles to reflect their complexities.