Packages are not a decision.
We identify which options are under discussion, what each includes, who decides, and what funding action comes next.
Editorial standards
Our job is to tell readers what happened, how we know, what it means locally, and what remains unanswered. These standards apply to breaking news, public-record reporting, data work, interviews, photography, and corrections.
We distinguish fact from assertion, a proposal from an outcome, and a reasonable question from a proven conclusion. When the evidence is incomplete, the story says so plainly.
The amount of reporting varies with the story, but the standard does not: material claims must be attributable, verifiable, and presented in their proper context.
Read the original agenda, filing, contract, dataset, recording, or firsthand account—not someone else’s summary.
Separate what is proposed, scheduled, approved, signed, funded, completed, disputed, or still unknown.
Seek responses from responsible officials, affected residents, businesses, and independent subject specialists.
Verify names, dates, amounts, quotations, calculations, and context before they reach a headline or alert.
Link records, explain calculations, attribute information, and state clearly when the available evidence has limits.
Update continuing stories as decisions change and publish clear correction notes when the record needs repair.
We identify which options are under discussion, what each includes, who decides, and what funding action comes next.
We compare vendor, purpose, equipment, dates, and terms before treating separate quotes as one purchase total.
We report the known term, identify the unstated cost, and seek the addendum before presenting a full-year price.
We seek the proposed language, each side’s position, the result of the meeting, and the next scheduled step.
Anonymous tips and social posts can point us toward a story, but they do not prove it. We work back to original records, direct observation, named sources, or reproducible data before making a material claim.
We request permission before using community photographs or video and provide credit. Charts, maps, and illustrations are labeled, sourced, and designed so a reader can understand what the underlying data does and does not show.
“Hi — may Comal.News use your photo/video in our coverage? We’ll give you credit as [name]. Please reply yes if that’s okay.”
An automated reader checks records that Comal County governments have already published on their websites: meeting agendas and packets, press releases, public notices, purchasing and bid pages, orders and resolutions, court dockets, and emergency alerts. It re-checks most pages every 5 to 60 minutes and some daily or weekly, keeps at least 1.5 seconds between requests to the same site, and never logs in, submits forms, or works around an access control. Each retrieved record is preserved unchanged, with the address and time it was collected, as evidence.
The reader identifies itself on every request with the user agent below. Website administrators with questions, or with access limits they would like us to follow, can reach us at news@comal.news.
Comal.News-Collector/0.1 (+https://comal.news/methods; news@comal.news)
Comal.News practices AI-enhanced journalism. Collection gathers the documents; it does not decide what is news. Reporting reads the exact record, establishes what is proposed, scheduled, approved, or still unknown, seeks responses from the people responsible and affected, and checks every material claim before publication. AI assists with reading, drafting, and verification, and every draft is checked against the original documents and the editorial rules on this page before it publishes. Every published claim links back to its source.
Collection preserves the record. Journalism decides what it means and proves it.
We link primary records whenever possible, identify the source of calculations, label developing information, and preserve meaningful correction notes. Readers can challenge a fact or submit supporting evidence at any time.