What We Do
The Truth in Journalism Project is a journalist-led initiative focused on the nature and methodology of fact-based journalism. We educate students and professionals in editorial fact-checking, and we encourage public discussion about the notions of accuracy and objectivity in reporting. Our principal activity is the creation of the Truth in Journalism Fact-Checking Guide, which articulates new guidelines for editorial fact-checking that are rigorous, inclusive, and informed by interdisciplinary expertise.
“Journalists tend to agree that fact-checking is vital to their discipline. But few are taught to think about it as a distinct step in their reporting methodology—one that intersects significantly with journalism ethics. We believe that, if fact-checking is the essence of journalism, then journalists need to learn how to do it without perpetuating inequitable standards of verification.”
Fact checkers work with two kinds of sources: gathered sources (the records and documents they consult) and interviewed sources (the people they speak with). These require different approaches and methods of documentation, which we outline below.
Whatever sources the fact checker is working with, their primary activity is to consider each isolated fact, consult the source the reporter has attributed it to, and confirm that everything lines up. But they sometimes have to do more investigation to clarify the fact, refute it, or attribute it to more reliable sources.
Shannon Palus, a veteran science fact checker and senior editor for Slate, says that a fact checker needs to know more than what is necessary for the confirmation or correction of the statement in question. For example, "last Christmas" in a 2022 story should become "December 25, 2021" in a fact-checking document. That level of detail may not be necessary for the story, but it's crucial for triangulating with other sources and ensuring that the timeline of the story is accurate.
Similarly, if the reporter uses a complex term or technical jargon in their story, the fact checker finds out what it means and includes that definition in their files. In doing so, they verify that the reporter has used the term appropriately, even if the term isn't defined in the story itself.
After reading through the story in full (we recommend doing so more than once), the first thing the fact checker does is contact interviewed sources to schedule fact-checking calls. It's helpful to do this early, since not everyone will respond right way. The reporter should have made notes about any interview subjects' particularities—frequent travellers who are difficult to contact, for example. The fact checker can use this information to plan ahead for their fact-checking calls.
The fact checker's initial message to a source (usually an email) should explain their intentions clearly, name the reporter, describe the topic of the story, and remind the source of when the original interview happened. It should identify the sender as a fact checker and explain that it's their job to make sure that the sources in the piece (and their ideas, work, and experiences) are presented accurately and fairly. It should then request a phone call within a reasonable time frame. (We usually request that sources respond within a week, but it depends on individual deadlines.) It's a good idea to leave time between the initial message and the first phone call to prepare questions and conduct research using gathered sources.
If the source does not answer, subsequent messages should include a firm deadline and communicate clearly that, if they do not speak with the fact checker in time, the checker may resort to using interview recordings or transcripts for confirmation (depending on what is available). Correspondence between the fact checker and the interviewed sources should be documented in the fact-checking folder.
As the fact checker is waiting for responses to their interview requests, they begin isolating the facts from the story however they prefer (we like to use coloured pens on the printed copy of the draft—one colour for each interviewed source, another for all gathered sources). During this process, they make notes about the kinds of sourcing the reporter has attributed to each fact. These notes will be helpful for working through the fact check, especially if the story is particularly long or complex.
While delineating the facts of the story, the fact checker should remain conscious of the big picture, make sure that the facts are presented without significant omissions, and confirm that the takeaway of the story is fair, plausible, and backed up by the available evidence. If there's a narrative arc to the story, it can be helpful to draw out a timeline to ensure that everything is in logical order.
For any detail that seems shaky or controversial, the fact checker should be proactive in finding extra sources, even if they weren't originally consulted by the reporter for the story. However, if the fact checker is thinking of scheduling interviews with new sources, they should check with the reporter's research package first. (The reporter may have already reached out to that person and been denied an interview, or they may have a personal relationship that would make the source's participation inappropriate.)
If a fact seems impossible or very difficult to check, the fact checker consults with the head of research. If the fact checker finds that a fact is incorrect or unprovable and has an idea for an alternative, they can suggest it to the handling editor—either during fact-check input or, if it will require a substantial rewrite, earlier on.
Note: it's important for the fact checker to document their work as they go. That means you should read this entire chapter (including the Documentation instructions) before considering yourself ready for your first fact check.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
