<aside>
</aside>
Inspired by professional standards from outlets like The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press AP’s “Telling the Story” guidelines, we aspire to follow a few simple but essential principles.
Where possible and especially with close acquaintances, we ask contributors to separate personal and professional communications. Dedicated email and phone lines for professional use help maintain boundaries, privacy, and professionalism.
E.g. We can jointly agree that iMessage is social. Work email is professional and on the record, unless agreed to being off the record.
We’re transparent about what we do, why we do it, and if we have any conflicts of interest; if we’re covering a local issue, readers deserve to know our role (beyond tax paying resident) and any affiliations we may have that could inform or compromise our perspective. As a rule we do not donate to any political candidates or causes. For the most part we are all immigrants, City of Hudson taxpayers, and residents who can't yet vote (read and hold onto your tea bags: taxation without representation). We disclose relevant commercial interests. We are known to and friendly with local law enforcement and elected officials, many of whom we consider friends, as well as elected officials. From an editorial perspective our byline is “The Editors.”*
***Why “The Editors” and not individual names? ****
Hudson Common Sense attempts to speak with one voice, shaped by editors and contributors who debate and refine pieces. With the exception of clearly marked Guest Op-Eds and intentional pen-name pieces, we do not sign our work; the ideas must stand on their own, judged by readers rather than résumés. A tradition rooted in the Founding era and refined during America’s newspaper golden age.
Additionally, some of us work in London, New York, Washington, or Kinderhook. Like many in such roles, we prefer not to mix international and national vocations with local life. We are not seeking office or attention, only a more apolitical, efficient, and equal town.
Read more: Nieman Foundation on The Economist’s quasi anonymous hive byline.
Read more from the WSJ on News Literacy and the difference between News & Opinion.
Watch this video and explainer on the difference between News & Opinion from the WSJ
Accuracy before speed: we always strive to verify information from multiple sources before publishing. We also try to avoid breaking news and stick to ideas and commentary, and at most may publish some investigative details that are important but not time-sensitive. We leave that to Gossips, the Times Union, NYT, and various comment sections. We are by design slow followers, we provide commentary on the news, we don’t break it. This principle stems from lessons learned the hard way, and also because in Hudson facts often only emerge after developing stories… develop.
<aside> 🎤
</aside>
Respectful engagement is key, especially online, we welcome feedback and questions and do our best to respond with thoughtfulness, not defensiveness. But this is America and sometimes satire, like The Shallot column, modeled on The Onion, is needed.
Finally, we prioritize the physical safety, privacy, and dignity of our sources and residents, especially when covering sensitive topics. A fact being public does not mean it should be made more public when not in the public interest to do so, even if legal. But do not mistake physical safety and legitimate privacy concerns for emotional safety and feelings. See our piece on The Threshold Test, and why we believe it is ok to relentlessly and lawfully criticize and investigate bad faith public servants.
These aren’t just policies, they’re habits that help build trust.
We may not have a full-time editorial staff, but we try to hold ourselves to a standard that honors the responsibility we have to our readers and our town, and how we would want to be treated if we ran for office, worked as a civil servant, or voluntarily lobbied the government and directed the public purse. We also recognize that like all humans we may fall short of these standards. In fact, we upgraded our process and published this page in the early days, when some candidates for office were concerned about our “influence” and the blurring line between resident and neighbor. We also investigative columnists turned occasional polemicist.
We hope that you will let us know right away if you believe we fall short of these standards (editors @ HudsonCommonSense.com), and that you will always consider sharing your perspective on Hudson Common Sense via Guest Op-Ed, or on your own medium, and we will gladly link to it.
<aside> 📢
Agreement is welcome. Disagreement is vital. Nuance is rare and therefore prized. Common Sense exists to sharpen arguments, not settle them. Submit your guest op‑ed HERE.
</aside>
We are the only organization in town who, as far as we know, seek out opposing views, invite those who disagree with us to critique us on our platform. And every editorial, Op-Ed, or column carries a large footer requesting corrections and inviting counter-speech.
When we started Hudson Common Sense, it took a few months to find our footing. Most honest local candidates and lobbyists initially like what we do. But that sentiment usually ends the moment the spotlight swings toward them or one of their friends. Turns out, many of the people who run our town have never been challenged by a serious question or considered conflicts of interests. Ask for a public document, a simple and lawful IRS Form 990 request, the very definition of lawful inquiry and speech, you can be met with threats or accused of harassment. In one case, the caller delivering those threats was literally phoning in from the Socialism 2025 conference in Chicago.
On the other end are the polished and supposedly credentialed professionals who talk a big game about dialogue and “curiosity,” but treat ordinary debate and highlighting hypocrisy as if it were persecution. They invoke “emotional safety” and “hold space” for self-serving definitions of “community” or “neighborliness” to demand special treatment for personal stories they themselves chose to share in the public square … all while they run for office or lobby the public purse. Push back on their proposals and they act as if you have attacked who they are rather than what they argued.
Both extremes miss the point. Residents want fairness. They want public debate that respects personal privacy but does not shy from scrutiny of ideas and public actions. A community unwilling to question its leaders will never govern itself honestly.
We dare intimidate and “harass” elected folks and lobbyists with… books as gifts!
We dare intimidate and “harass” elected folks and lobbyists with… books as gifts!