The New York Times vs South China Morning Post — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
The New York Times outscores South China Morning Post on Citation Discipline by 10 points (A · 88 vs B · 78).
The New York Times
Multi-source verification; fact-check + corrections processes public; named bylines + editor accountability.
South China Morning Post
Strong editorial standards historically; ownership-influence concerns raised post-2016 Alibaba acquisition.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Multi-source verification; fact-check + corrections processes public; named bylines + editor accountability.
Strong editorial standards historically; ownership-influence concerns raised post-2016 Alibaba acquisition.
Signals behind the Discipline score
- Public correctionsDaily corrections column dating back decades.
- Editor accountabilityPublic editor / standards editor roles.
- Editorial independence questionedIndependent watchdogs flag ownership-influence vectors; bylines named, corrections public.
Other dimensions for The New York Times vs South China Morning Post
Other Discipline comparisons
Sources & references
Every score on this page is read from the two publications below and graded against the published rubric. No score is bought, estimated or supplied by the source being scored.
- Source evaluated — The New York Times (nytimes.com) · verified · full scoring record
- Source evaluated — South China Morning Post (scmp.com) · verified · full scoring record
- Scoring rubric — SourceScore Index, Citation Discipline, Modern Reference, Citation Velocity (methodology v0.1)
- Machine-readable record — /api/compare/nyt-vs-scmp/discipline.json