Fact-check workflow Fact-checking is systematic, not intuitive. This skill provides structure for claim verification, evidence documentation, and rating decisions. When to use Pre-publication fact-checking of articles Dedicated fact-check stories (rating claims) Verifying source statements during reporting Building fact-checking protocols for a newsroom Training staff on verification standards The fact-check process 1. Identify claim → 2. Research claim → 3. Gather evidence → 4. Contact sources → 5. Rate/verify → 6. Document → 7. Publish/correct Step 1: Claim extraction What to check Check: Factual assertions ("X happened," "Y is true") Statistics and numbers Dates and timelines Quotes and attributions Causal claims ("X caused Y") Don't check (opinions): "This policy is good/bad" "We should do X" Predictions about the future Matters of taste or preference Claim extraction template
Claim log ** Article/Source: ** [where the claim appeared] ** Date: ** [when]
Claim 1 ** Statement: ** [exact quote or paraphrase] ** Speaker: ** [who said it] ** Context: ** [surrounding context] ** Type: ** [statistic/historical/quote/causal] ** Priority: ** [high/medium/low based on importance to story] ** Status: ** [pending/verified/false/unverifiable]
Claim 2 [same structure] Prioritizing claims Priority Criteria High Central to the story's thesis, easily checkable, high consequence if wrong Medium Supporting detail, takes more effort to verify Low Peripheral detail, commonly accepted, minimal consequence Check high-priority claims first. Check all claims if time allows. Step 2: Research the claim Primary sources first Claim type Primary sources Statistics Original study, government data, survey methodology Quotes Audio/video recording, transcript, direct confirmation Historical Contemporary news accounts, official records Scientific Peer-reviewed research, expert consensus Legal Court documents, official filings Financial SEC filings, audited statements Secondary source evaluation If you must use secondary sources: How close are they to the original? Do they cite their sources? Do multiple independent sources confirm? Is there any contradicting coverage? Research documentation template
Research for Claim: [brief description]
Primary sources checked | Source | What it says | Confirms/Contradicts | |
|
|
| | [source] | [finding] | [confirms/contradicts/partial] |
Secondary sources checked | Source | What it says | Reliability | |
|
|
| | [source] | [finding] | [high/medium/low] |
Gaps in evidence
[What you couldn't find]
[What you still need] Step 3: Evidence gathering Types of evidence Evidence type Strength Notes Official documents Strong Court records, government reports, filings Primary data Strong Original datasets, your own analysis Expert consensus Strong Multiple independent experts agree On-record sources Medium Named source with direct knowledge Contemporary accounts Medium News coverage from the time Off-record sources Weak Use to guide reporting, not as evidence Social media posts Weak Can be deleted, context matters Evidence checklist
Evidence for: [claim]
Documentary evidence
[ ] Government records
[ ] Court documents
[ ] Corporate filings
[ ] Published research
[ ] Official statements/press releases
Human sources
[ ] Direct witnesses
[ ] Subject matter experts
[ ] Involved parties (on record)
[ ] Involved parties (for response)
Data verification
[ ] Original dataset obtained
[ ] Methodology reviewed
[ ] Calculations independently verified
[ ] Sample size adequate
Contradicting evidence
[ ] Searched for conflicting sources
[ ] Contradictions documented
[ ] Discrepancies explained Step 4: Contact sources Right of response Always contact: People/organizations being fact-checked Give specific claims you're checking Give reasonable deadline (24-48 hours minimum) Document their response (or non-response) Source contact template Subject: Request for comment - [Publication] fact-check Dear [Name], I'm a [title] at [publication] working on a fact-check of [context]. Specifically, I'm examining this claim: "[Exact claim being checked]" I want to give you the opportunity to provide any evidence supporting this claim, clarify the context, or offer any corrections. My deadline is [date/time]. Please let me know if you need more time. [Your name] [Contact info] Document responses
Source response log
[Source name] ** Contacted: ** [date/time, method] ** Deadline given: ** [date/time] ** Response received: ** [date/time] / No response ** Summary: ** [what they said] ** Evidence provided: ** [any documentation] ** Direct quote for publication: ** "[quote]" Step 5: Rating the claim Standard rating scales Binary (for internal fact-checking): ✅ Verified ❌ False ⚠️ Unverifiable Graduated (for fact-check articles): Rating Criteria True Accurate and complete, nothing significant omitted Mostly true Accurate but needs context or minor clarification Half true Partially accurate but leaves out critical context Mostly false Contains some truth but overall misleading False Not accurate; contradicted by evidence Pants on fire Not accurate AND ridiculous (use sparingly) Rating decision template
Rating decision: [claim] ** Claim: ** [exact statement] ** Speaker: ** [who said it] ** Our rating: ** [rating]
Evidence supporting the claim
[Evidence 1]
[Evidence 2]
Evidence contradicting the claim
[Evidence 1]
[Evidence 2]
Key context missing from the claim
[Context 1]
[Context 2]
Source response [What they said when contacted]
Reasoning [Explain why this rating, not another]
Confidence level [High/Medium/Low and why] Step 6: Documentation The fact-check file For every claim verified, maintain:
Fact-check record ** Claim: ** [exact statement] ** Source: ** [who said it, where, when] ** Checked by: ** [your name] ** Date checked: ** [date]
Verification ** Rating: ** [rating] ** Primary evidence: ** [list with links/locations] ** Supporting evidence: ** [list] ** Contradicting evidence: ** [if any]
Sources contacted
[ Name ] : [response summary] - [ Name ] : [no response as of date]
Notes [Any additional context, caveats, future considerations]
Files
[List of saved documents, screenshots, etc.] Archiving evidence Save screenshots with timestamps (URLs can change) Archive web pages (Wayback Machine, Archive.today) Download documents (don't just link) Keep original files separate from your analysis Step 7: Corrections When to correct Situation Action Factual error Correct immediately, note correction Missing context Add context, may not need formal correction Updated information Update, note "Updated: [date]" Source disputes characterization Evaluate claim, correct if warranted Correction template ** Correction [date]: ** An earlier version of this article stated [incorrect claim]. In fact, [correct information]. We regret the error. Correction log
Correction record ** Article: ** [title/URL] ** Original publication: ** [date] ** Error discovered: ** [date] ** Error type: ** [factual/context/attribution/etc.] ** Original text: ** [what was published] ** Corrected text: ** [what it now says] ** How discovered: ** [reader tip, internal review, source complaint, etc.] ** Correction published: ** [date] ** Location: ** [in article, separate correction page, both] Pre-publication checklist Before any story publishes:
Pre-publication fact-check ** Article: ** [title] ** Reporter: ** [name] ** Editor: ** [name] ** Fact-checker: ** [name, if separate] ** Publish date: ** [date]
Claims verified | Claim | Status | Evidence | Notes | |
|
|
|
| | [claim 1] | ✅ | [source] | | | [claim 2] | ✅ | [source] | |
Sources contacted for comment | Source | Contacted | Response | |
|
|
| | [name] | [date] | [received/no response] |
Numbers and statistics
[ ] All statistics sourced
[ ] Calculations independently verified
[ ] Context provided (per capita, adjusted for inflation, etc.)
Quotes
[ ] All quotes verified against recording/transcript
[ ] Attribution is accurate
[ ] Context preserved
Names and titles
[ ] All names spelled correctly
[ ] Titles current and accurate
[ ] Affiliations verified
Legal review (if applicable)
[ ] Defamation risk assessed
[ ] All claims supported by evidence
[ ] Response from subjects documented
Sign-off ** Reporter: ** [name, date] ** Editor: ** [name, date] ** Fact-checker: ** [name, date] Fact-check article structure For dedicated fact-check stories:
[Headline: Claim being checked] ** Claim: ** [Exact claim in quotes] ** Source: ** [Who said it, where, when] ** Our rating: ** [Rating with visual indicator]
What was said [Context of the claim, full quote, circumstances]
What the evidence shows [Present evidence for and against]
The verdict [Explanation of rating decision]
Sources [List all sources with links]
* Published: [date] | Updated: [date if applicable] * Fact-checking isn't about gotchas. It's about accuracy. The goal is truth, not points.