Editorial Standards

Our Mission

Our mission is to explore mysteries, anomalous events, hidden programs, and apocalyptic risk in a way that is:

• Thoughtful
• Evidence-aware
• Honest about uncertainty
• Respectful of our audience's intelligence

We aim to balance curiosity with rigor and storytelling with responsibility.

Evidence and Standards of Proof

We work with a spectrum of material: peer-reviewed science, historical documents, whistleblower testimony, investigative reporting, and personal accounts.

We categorize evidence into different levels:

• Well-documented: Supported by multiple independent sources, official records, or broadly accepted research.
• Contested: Credible but disputed, partially corroborated, or lacking full consensus.
• Speculative: Hypotheses, interpretations, or theories that go beyond currently available evidence.

Speculative or contested ideas are labeled as such and not presented as proven fact. We make clear distinctions between what is known, what is plausible, and what is purely theoretical.

Sources and Citation

We follow these principles when selecting and citing sources:

• We prefer primary sources when possible (reports, papers, FOIA releases, archival material).
• We use credible secondary reporting when primary sources are unavailable.
• We avoid relying solely on unverified social media, anonymous message boards, or recycled claims without traceable origin.

Speculation vs. Storytelling

We explore dramatic scenarios—cataclysm cycles, solar storms, covert programs, and more. Storytelling helps us engage with these topics, but we maintain clear boundaries between:

• What is known
• What is plausible
• What is purely speculative

We:

• Signal hypotheses and theories clearly.
• Avoid presenting them as established fact.
• Where possible, mention conventional or mainstream explanations alongside fringe ones.

Use of AI and Synthetic Media

Unexplained.co uses AI for:

• Drafting and refining scripts
• Generating and editing images
• Voice synthesis and narration
• Assisting with research and summarization

We want to be transparent about our use of AI:

• Human oversight is always present.
• AI does not “decide” what is true.
• AI is used to improve production quality and efficiency, not fabricate evidence.

Synthetic or composited visuals are illustrative and atmospheric, not photographic proof. We do not use AI to create false evidence or misrepresent reality.

Corrections and Updates

We are committed to accuracy and transparency:

• We will correct material errors (misquotes, wrong dates, misattributed sources, misleading implications).
• Substantive changes may be labeled as updates or corrections.
• Show notes, descriptions, and article text are updated when needed.

If you spot a potential error, please contact us. We review feedback in good faith and use it to improve our work and our standards.

Conflicts of Interest and Independence

We maintain editorial independence:

• We may work with advertisers, sponsors, or partners.
• Editorial decisions are independent and not for sale.
• Paid partnerships do not grant control over coverage.
• Sponsored or collaborative content is clearly labeled.

We do not accept payment or benefits in exchange for presenting specific claims as factual. Our editorial integrity is not negotiable.

Sensitive Topics and Respect

Some topics we cover involve death, tragedy, trauma, cultural and religious beliefs, and real people and institutions. We handle these with care:

• We use respectful language.
• We avoid unnecessary graphic detail.
• We take care with privacy and safety, especially for non-public figures.
• We do not endorse harassment, doxxing, or vigilantism.

How to Contact Us

If you believe we have made an error, have additional evidence, or have concerns about how we've presented a topic, you can reach us at: our contact page.

We review feedback in good faith and use it to improve our work and our standards.