12 Fact-checking and managing mistakes

Fact-checking can happen at either (or both) of two points in the journalistic process: Before or after something is published.

Independent fact-checkers checks facts after publication. This is what the websites, listed in Chapter 3, do. Often known as political fact-checkers, these people are often working independently of any news organization, scrutinizing content found elsewhere. Their titles might be “fact-checker,” but they’re working as journalists, or at least in journalistic roles.

These people fact-check information by breaking down the facts in political advertisements, political statements, political speeches or in news releases. The fact-checkers examine the content of these forms of communication for truthfulness and accuracy.

Editorial fact-checkers are part of a publication’s in-house editorial team and do their work before information reaches the public. Stories are written and edited, but before the story is finalized, it is checked for accuracy by designated people on the editorial staff or by freelance fact-checkers.

Those editors, who sometimes work exclusively as fact-checkers but might check facts as part of broader editing roles, take a number of steps to check facts. These are the steps suggested by The Poynter Institute for Media Studies:

• Find at least two sources to verify information. Use reliable sources and websites.
• Ask the writer for source materials. Check the text against recordings, documents or notes.
• Trust your gut. If something seems odd, check it.
• Don’t assume you know something is correct. Don’t assume writers and reporters are good at math. Don’t assume that “facts” repeated from other media are accurate.
• Once you find a mistake, you’re not done. Look over the entire piece with your eagle eye so you are sure to spot all the errors.

There are two main models of editorial fact-checking: the newspaper model and the magazine model.

Newspaper model

In the newspaper model, copy editors or other editors at the publication will spot check facts that appear in stories that are being prepared for publication.

It often works like this: After a reporter turns in a story, the reporter may work with a line editor to go over the details of the story. These can include structural as well as factual details. Is anything missing? Is anything unclear? Does the story follow the correct format?

After finishing that process, the reporter knows to be on call. As the editing process continues, another editor, possibly a copy editor or another high-level editor, may call the reporter seeking clarification about facts in the story.

Ideally, all of these questions are answered before publication. But even after publication, people — including readers — may question information in the story, and the reporter may yet again need to clarify information or fix a mistake.

When a mistake or unclear fact isn’t caught after publication, and some readers see it, the newspaper will then publish a correction or clarification. (More on this, below.)

Magazine model

The magazine model differs from the newspaper model in one primary way: In addition to copy editors and other editors, magazines often hire fact-checkers to examine stories before publication. So, after other editors have worked with the reporter, a fact-checker goes over the story line by line in order to double-check every fact in the story.

The fact-checker does this by researching the story online or in other publications, including books. The biggest difference in the magazine model is the fact-checker contacts sources named in the story. The fact-checker will ask the source a series of questions to double-check the story.

Any errors or inconsistencies the fact-checker finds will be documented and sent back to the reporter. Then it’s the reporter’s job to figure out what needs to change in the final version of the story.

Clearly, newspapers and magazines utilize these models for fact-checking, but they aren’t the only ones. For instance, long-form podcasts sometimes employ fact-checkers who follow the magazine model to eliminate problems before publication.

As you read, above, independent, political fact-checking is done by journalists who scrutinize political ads, statements, news releases and social media posts — that have already been published or aired — for accuracy.

Editorial fact-checking is done before pre-publication, in-house as part of a news outlet’s editorial process. Stories are written or produced and edited as well as fact-checked for accuracy by designated people on the editorial staff. This happens before the story is published.

However it’s done, the goal is to maximize the accuracy of information that’s published or broadcast. It’s a multi-step process that starts once the story is near completion. Here are the basic steps:

• Identify all of the sources in the story. Obtain contact information for people sources.
• Next, identify statements of fact in the story. (Subjective statements attributed to sources don’t need to be fact-checked.)
• Contact sources (preferably via a voice or video call) and ask them to confirm or correct factual information.
• Separate information provided by sources:
  • Things that need to be corrected (factual issues)
  • Vs. things that might need to be clarified.
• Make a report of corrections and clarifications for editors to consider as they finalize the story.

To err is human; to correct, divine

Here’s another reason to check facts. Journalists want to avoid mistakes as much as humanly possible: Mistakes erode credibility. Or, put more positively, the fewer your mistakes, the higher your credibility. And that’s the goal of good, informative journalism.

“Corrections are a fundamental building block for trustworthy journalism.”

— The Poynter Institute for Media Studies.

Mistakes can range from typos to egregious factual errors. But the most common ones are something in between. Many journalists will tell you the No. 1 mistake they want to avoid is misspelling someone’s name.

Why? Well, how do you feel when you see your own name misspelled (or hear it mispronounced)? Exactly. Names are not only key facts in a story. Names are keenly important to the people you’re writing about and to.

If readers or viewers see a name misspelled — their own or someone else’s — in a story or on a screen, it often jumps out at them more than any other mistake. What’s more, the audience member might then wonder if the reporter got other facts wrong.

So, as you can see, mistakes big or small can call the reporter’s credibility into question. “This story is full of typos,” the reader might think. “I don’t trust that this story is well reported.”

But hey, that’s a lot of pressure, right? As Alexander Pope famously wrote, “To err is human.” Sure, that’s why we said journalists avoid mistakes as much as humanly possible. It’s an important first step. But when mistakes are inevitably made, there’s another step for maintaining credibility: correcting them.

Legitimate, trustworthy news sources strengthen their credibility by acknowledging mistakes and publishing corrections. No matter how big or small the mistake, running corrections, most importantly, helps audience members get the right information.

What if a fact wasn’t technically incorrect? Maybe it was unclear instead. If published information is unclear, the publication can run a clarification rather than a correction. That would involve publishing an explanation of information in a way that makes it clearer even if the information was factually correct.

So, journalists do this by publishing lists of corrections and/or clarifications or appending changes to individual online stories and citing the correction at the top or bottom of the story.

Again, there’s also a connection between correcting mistakes and clarifying information and the primary theme of this book. Some news consumers will point to mistakes — and even corrections — and claim it’s disinformation (or “fake news”). But it’s not. Remember our definitions? Misinformation can include, among other things, honest mistakes and misunderstandings. Correcting misinformation is good journalism.