Asahi Shimbun vs South China Morning Post — Discipline
How rigorously each source backs its factual claims with verifiable evidence.
Asahi Shimbun outscores South China Morning Post on Citation Discipline by 2 points (B · 80 vs B · 78).
Asahi Shimbun
Long editorial tradition; named bylines; corrections public; fact-check department.
South China Morning Post
Strong editorial standards historically; ownership-influence concerns raised post-2016 Alibaba acquisition.
Global rank · Discipline
Why these Discipline scores
Long editorial tradition; named bylines; corrections public; fact-check department.
Strong editorial standards historically; ownership-influence concerns raised post-2016 Alibaba acquisition.
Signals behind the Discipline score
- Editorial standardsOne of Japan's two papers of record (with Yomiuri).
- Editorial independence questionedIndependent watchdogs flag ownership-influence vectors; bylines named, corrections public.
Other dimensions for Asahi Shimbun 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 — Asahi Shimbun (asahi.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/asahi-shimbun-vs-scmp/discipline.json