Fact Checking

This section covers investigative journalism methodologies, focusing on source verification, data validation, and fact-checking processes.

Sourcing strategies

The key principle is to prioritize lived experience and direct involvement over secondhand accounts.

The authoritative sources are the primary ones:

• Directly affected individuals – people experiencing the issue firsthand
• Community representatives – leaders speaking for collective experience
• Institutional officials – government and organizational representatives
• Subject practitioners – Experts actively working in the field
• Eyewitnesses – observers of systemic issues

Then there are non-authoritative sources, which have to be used selectively:

• Secondhand witnesses (heard from direct witnesses)
• Associates of accused parties (ex-spouses, relatives)
• People with tangential knowledge

Evidence and verification

Background checking sources

For sources WITH digital presence:

• Review all social media channels
• Check if they’ve been cited in research
• Examine professional websites or government profiles
• Look for previous media coverage

For sources WITHOUT digital presence (e.g. poorer countries where many lack smartphones/electricity):

• Request physical evidence to substantiate claims
• Conduct direct observation (verify with your own eyes)
• Use visual documentation (photographs, videos)

Types of evidence to gather

Bias assessment

Questions to ask:

• What is the source’s political affiliation?
• Do they have vested interests in the outcome?
• Are they motivated by opposition sentiment?
• Could there be racial, ethnic, or colonial legacy factors influencing their perspective?

Data analysis and contextualization

Data verification principles

Always question how/when/what data was collected.

Granularity and nuance

Avoid oversimplification. Break down national statistics. Example:

National Average: 47% of a known phenomenon in Namibia, but:
├── Rural areas: 70%+
├── Informal settlements near capital: ~40%
└── Capital city proper: Near 0%

Data sources hierarchy

Most reliable:

• UN agencies (WHO, UNICEF)
• Government census data
• Established research institutions
• Peer-reviewed academic studies

Requires additional vetting:

• NGO reports
• Advocacy group data
• “Random internet sources”

Red flags:

• Rounded numbers (can hide precision)
• 20+ year old data in investigative contexts
• Data that cannot be traced to methodology

Digital Verification: Images, Video & AI

Image verification

Visual inspection:

• Check for mismatched lighting or shadows
• Look for pixelation around edges
• Examine for awkward cropping marks (black lines)
• Assess if quality matches claimed source

Technical verification:

1. Reverse image search: Use Google Images or TinEye

   • Check if image appears on legitimate news sites
   • Identify if used in conspiracy contexts
   • Find earliest/original posting

2. Metadata analysis:

   • Use tools like exifdata.com or Photoshop
   • Check timestamps, camera information, location data
   • Warning: Metadata can be manipulated

3. Advanced analysis:

   • Tools like Image Edited (pixel-level analysis)
   • Look for manipulation artifacts

Video verification

Red flags:

• Gaps in timeline or awkward cuts
• Pixelation suggesting screen recording
• Lag between audio and lip movement
• Lack of natural facial expressions/body movement

Process:

1. Check if competitor outlets have posted same footage
2. Watch multiple times for inconsistencies
3. Take screenshots for reverse image search
4. Use tools like InVID to find original poster and timeline

AI-Generated content detection

Human features to examine:

Video-specific AI indicators:

• Audio-visual synchronization issues
• Unnatural facial expressions
• Robotic body movements

Interview best practices

Recording and documentation

Use video when possible (captures body language), otherwise audio recording of every interview.

Get spelled out:

• Full name spelling (repeated 2-3 times)
• Official title/affiliation
• How they want to be identified in publication
• Any descriptors they prefer

Follow-up protocol

It’s critical for investigative stories: before publicating anything, re-interview key sources, acknowledge updates (e.g., new government sanitation plan discovered)

Transcription and organization

1. Transcribe all interviews
2. Highlight key quotes and information
3. Indicate which interviews were actually cited in final story
4. Review context around quotes to avoid misrepresentation

Editorial fact-checking process

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│           EDITORIAL FACT-CHECKING FRAMEWORK            │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  1. VERIFY       →  All statements are factual         │
│  2. INVESTIGATE  →  Credibility of sources confirmed   │
│  3. DOCUMENT     →  All sourcing preserved             │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Verification Steps

For Non-Human Sources:

• Compare every figure to original source documents
• Verify data dates and update status
• Double-check all calculations
• Confirm URLs and document accessibility

For Human Sources:

• Review all transcriptions
• Check context of quoted material (before/after)
• Verify name spellings and titles
• Spot-check by contacting key sources directly

Source Vetting (Editor Level)

Deep dive when:

• Source credibility could compromise story
• Political biases may influence testimony
• Accused parties have high litigation risk

Fairness and precision standards

The “Step Back” assessment

Avoiding common pitfalls

Superlatives to avoid (almost always inaccurate):

• “Always,” “Never,” “Only,” “Every”
• Replace with: “In many cases,” “Most,” “Often”

Value Judgments (Let facts speak):

• Avoid: “The government failed”
• Use: “The government promised 100,000 toilets and delivered 5”

Transparency about limitations

Acknowledge:

• Data gaps (e.g., “2020 data – most recent available”)
• Uncertainty about attribution (“Multiple ministries involved – unclear who is responsible”)
• Incomplete information (“Government plan not yet approved”)

Organizational Best Practices

Source Management

Running List Should Include:

• Source contact information
• URLs for all research
• Corresponding facts for each source
• Interview transcripts (highlight cited quotes)

Digital Folder Structure

Investigation_Folder/
├── Sources/
│   ├── Interviews/
│   │   ├── Transcriptions/
│   │   └── Audio_Files/
│   ├── Contact_Info/
│   └── Background_Research/
├── Data/
│   ├── Government_Reports/
│   ├── UN_Data/
│   └── Calculations/
├── Documents/
│   ├── PDFs/
│   └── Screenshots/
└── Drafts/
    ├── Chapter_Drafts/
    └── Final_Edits/

Citation Format

For each fact, maintain:

• Direct link to source
• Date accessed
• Methodology notes (if calculated from raw data)
• Context of quotes (surrounding sentences)

Special Considerations

Small Community Reporting

Challenge: Sources may refuse future cooperation if portrayed negatively

Mitigation Strategies:

• Be transparent about why you’re asking tough questions
• Give accused parties ample space to respond
• Quote them extensively to show full context
• Accurate representation builds long-term trust

Expedited Fact-Checking

When Timeline is Compressed:

• Prioritize most controversial claims for verification
• Focus on accused parties’ responses
• Use spot-checks rather than full review
• Maintain documentation even if abbreviated

Cross-Cultural Reporting

Language Considerations:

• Define unfamiliar terms
• Explain acronyms on first use in each section
• Translate and define non-English terms
• Consider redefining acronyms if chapters published separately