Editorial guidelines

These guidelines establish the quality for content published across AAWAA’s digital platforms, reflecting our commitment to rigorous advocacy journalism and professional media content whilst serving as an accessible resource for ordinary women seeking to join us and to understand and engage with issues affecting us.

Content type and topics

AAWAA’s editorial focus encompasses the full spectrum of women’s rights advocacy, combining in-depth policy analysis with strategic advocacy and coalition building. Our coverage centres on the intersection of law, policy, and women’s lived experiences, examining how legislative and institutional changes affect women and girls across Australia.

Core subject areas

Our editorial coverage addresses the key areas that reflect our mission as both advocacy organisation and independent media outlet:

Women’s sex-based protections and rights under Australian and international law
Government consultation processes and democratic participation
Legislative analysis of bills affecting women and girls (sex self-ID, surrogacy, prostitution, anti-discrimination laws)
Reproductive exploitation
Sexual exploitation
Female-only spaces and services facing legal and policy challenges
International human rights advocacy (UN submissions, CEDAW compliance)
Coalition building and feminist advocacy strategy

Content categories

Our content serves different reader needs and advocacy purposes through six distinct categories:

Policy analysis provides comprehensive examination of legislation and government decisions, combining legal expertise with accessible explanation to help readers understand both technical details and practical implications.
Campaign updates offer progress reports on ongoing advocacy efforts, keeping readers informed about AAWAA’s strategic work whilst providing opportunities for engagement and support.
Submissions represent our formal communications with government bodies, demonstrating our evidence-based approach whilst providing transparency about our advocacy positions.
Local Action interviews showcase women activists across Australia, humanising our advocacy work whilst highlighting diverse approaches to feminist organising.
Coalition work includes joint statements and collaborative advocacy pieces, demonstrating how feminist organisations work together on shared priorities.
International advocacy covers our UN submissions and global feminist connections, showing how Australian women’s rights connect to international human rights frameworks.

Tone and voice

AAWAA’s editorial voice reflects our unique position as ordinary women undertaking serious advocacy and independent journalism. We write with authority earned through rigorous research and principled analysis, maintaining professional standards that command respect from policymakers, journalists, and the women whose rights we defend.

Our tone combines serious, evidence-based analysis with accessible language that serves both expert and general audiences. We maintain academic rigour without sacrificing readability, ensuring that complex policy issues remain understandable to women seeking to engage with advocacy work.

Authorship standards and byline policy

AAWAA publishes content under our organisational byline rather than individual names. This reflects our commitment to feminist advocacy as collective work and recognises that many contributors face legitimate privacy and security concerns. Women advocating for sex-based protections have experienced harassment and professional retaliation, making individual public identification risky. Our organisational byline ensures accountability through our editorial standards whilst protecting contributors and drawing on the broadest possible expertise.

Key characteristics

Our editorial voice is characterised by five essential qualities:

Principled: Grounded in evidence, research, and consistent feminist analysis
Direct: Clear statements of position without euphemism or unnecessary qualification
Professional: Maintains highest journalistic and advocacy standards
Respectful: Uses courtesy and civility even when critiquing opponents
Urgent: Conveys seriousness of threats to women’s rights without hyperbole

Language standards

Our house style follows specific conventions that reflect our values and ensure consistency:

British English spelling and punctuation
Sentence case for headings (not title case)
Single quotation marks for emphasis, double for direct quotes
‘Women’s sex-based protections and rights’ (not just ‘sex-based rights’)
‘Female-only spaces’ (not ‘single-sex spaces’)
‘Our, us, we’ when referring to women (not ‘their, them, they’)

Structure and format

Effective advocacy communication requires clear structure that guides readers through complex issues whilst maintaining engagement. Our articles follow established patterns that serve both advocacy and journalistic purposes.

Standard article structure

AAWAA articles typically follow this proven framework:

Compelling headline – Clear, direct, action-oriented
Strong opening – States key issue and AAWAA’s position immediately
Background/context – Explains broader significance
Detailed analysis – Evidence-based examination with specific examples
Implications – What this means for women and girls
Action items – What readers/decision-makers should do
Conclusion – Reinforces key message and call to action

Formatting standards

To enhance readability and accessibility, we employ consistent formatting:

Descriptive subheadings to break up long articles
Reading time estimates displayed as ‘X Minutes’, automatically calculated
Relevant keyword tags for searchability
Embedded podcast episodes where appropriate
Bullet points for action items and key provisions

Length and content scope

Content length varies according to purpose and audience needs, balancing comprehensive analysis with accessibility whilst recognising that different types of advocacy content serve different functions.

Article length by type

Our approach to length reflects the depth of analysis required and reader expectations:

Brief updates: 1-2 reading minutes (300-600 words)
Standard analysis: 3-6 reading minutes (900-1,800 words)
In-depth investigations: 6-11 reading minutes (1,800-3,300 words)
Local Action interviews: 3-16 reading minutes (varies by content)

Reading time estimates use approximately 300 words per minute, recognising that detailed advocacy content often requires more careful reading than general news articles.

Research and sourcing standards

Rigorous research distinguishes AAWAA’s advocacy journalism from commentary or opinion writing. Our standards reflect both journalistic integrity and advocacy effectiveness, ensuring that our positions rest on solid evidential foundations whilst maintaining credibility with diverse audiences.

Evidence requirements

All factual claims require verification through reliable sources, with preference given to:

Primary sources: Government documents, legislative texts, court decisions, official statements
Legislative references: Full bill and act names, dates, and relevant section numbers
International law: CEDAW, ICCPR, UN reports, international human rights decisions
Academic research: Expert analysis and peer-reviewed studies
Legal precedent: Case law and judicial decisions
FOI documentation: Government communications and internal processes

Source standards

We maintain transparency and accountability through:

Clear identification of sources and methodologies
Acknowledgment of potential conflicts of interest
Documentation of consultation processes
Systematic monitoring across jurisdictions
International comparison and historical context
Coalition input and expert collaboration

Editorial standards

Professional writing, journalism, and advocacy ethics guide all editorial decisions, ensuring that AAWAA’s content meets standards expected by both media consumers and advocacy organisations.

Journalistic integrity

Our commitment to professional standards encompasses:

Accuracy through verification of all claims via primary sources, with prompt correction of any errors that occur.
Balance by acknowledging other perspectives whilst maintaining clear editorial positions based on evidence and principle.
Transparency including identification of organisational authors, affiliations, and potential conflicts of interest.
Accountability through responsiveness to legitimate criticism and ongoing evaluation of editorial approaches.
Independence ensuring editorial decisions reflect evidence and principle rather than external pressure.

Advocacy ethics

We maintain professional standards whilst advocating clear positions by:

Distinguishing between news reporting and analysis
Avoiding personal attacks whilst critiquing policies
Respecting the privacy and dignity of and individuals mentioned
Focusing on systemic issues rather than individual blame
Engaging constructively with democratic processes

Podcast integration

Our multimedia approach includes:

Regular cross-referencing between written and audio content
Embedded Spotify links for seamless transition between formats
Extended discussion of complex issues through audio format

Document sharing

We provide comprehensive access to source materials through:

Embedded or linked PDF submissions and government documents
Coalition letters and joint statements
Research reports supporting policy positions
Primary source materials referenced in analysis

Attribution and coalition work

Effective advocacy often involves collaborative work that requires clear attribution and shared accountability. We provide both.

Authorship standards

We maintain clarity about content origin through:

Standard byline: ‘AAWAA (Affiliation of Australian Women’s Advocacy Alliances)’
State affiliate attribution when content reflects jurisdictional work
Clear identification of guest contributors
Joint submission marking for coalition work

Coalition protocol

Collaborative advocacy requires:

Acknowledgment of all participating organisations in joint statements
Clear distinction between AAWAA positions and coalition positions
Appropriate credit for shared research and analysis
Transparency about collaborative relationships

Quality control and standards

Consistent quality requires systematic editorial processes that maintain standards whilst supporting efficient content production.

Editorial process

Every piece of content undergoes:

Fact-checking of all claims and citations
Review of sensitive content where appropriate
Consistency checking for style and tone
Proofreading for grammar and clarity

Content review

All content is evaluated for:

Alignment with AAWAA’s stated mission, principles, and positions
Consistency with previous advocacy positions
Strategic value for advancement of women’s protections and rights
Professional standards appropriate for target audiences

Publication strategy

Strategic communication requires responsive publishing that addresses urgent developments whilst maintaining consistent quality, as well as analytical depth for ongoing issues.

Publishing approach

Our publication strategy balances:

Regular content throughout the year
Responsiveness to legislative calendars and consultation periods
Timely analysis of breaking developments
Strategic timing around government processes

Content planning

Effective advocacy communication requires:

Advance preparation for known legislative reviews
Rapid response capacity for urgent developments
Coordination with coalition partners on messaging
Integration with podcast production team schedules

These guidelines ensure AAWAA’s established practice of combining rigorous advocacy with professional journalism; maintaining credibility with policymakers, journalists, and ordinary women; whilst advancing a clear feminist agenda grounded in evidence, principle, and strategic effectiveness.