7. Trauma-Informed and Compassionate Fact-Checking

Journalists often strive to hold powerful people to account. But they also tell the stories of people whose power has been taken away—those who have experienced loss, abuse, violence, marginalization, or oppression. Clearly, these two aims of journalism go hand in hand, yet they also require quite different methodological practices, including different norms of communication and support in the relationships between journalist, fact checker, and source.

In this chapter, we formulate principles for what we call trauma-informed or compassionate fact-checking. The guidelines presented here are more people-focused than those in other chapters: they are not about which documentary sources to look for to verify a fact, nor are they about how to assess them (see Chapters Three to Six for these discussions). Rather, they focus on the fact checker's interactions with other people, including how to give individual sources a feeling of agency and care in the fact-checking process while maintaining standards of factual accuracy and precision.

We begin the chapter by discussing the importance of fact-checking sensitive stories, and we explain what we mean by "compassionate fact-checking." Then we describe the conversations that should take place between a fact checker and the editorial team before the fact check of a sensitive story as well as the ideal relationship between a fact checker and a source who requires a compassionate approach. We outline the kinds of accommodations that can be made for these sources during fact-checking. And we provide methodological guidelines for conducting documentary research fact-checking interviews and while avoiding further harm to those whose harm the story is about. Finally, we touch briefly on vicarious trauma and taking care of the fact-checker.

Why Fact-Check Stories About Trauma?

The relationship between trauma, marginalization, and standards of accuracy in storytelling is complex. This is important for journalists, including fact checkers, to acknowledge throughout the course of their work.

If we think of accuracy as a matter of setting down exactly what happened in minute detail, a person's experience of a traumatic event can make journalistic accuracy about their story difficult to obtain. As Jan Winburn, a veteran longform editor and specialist in trauma-informed journalism, notes, "The state of mind a person is in when something unthinkable has happened to them is a state in which you may not get accurate information." Memory loss and inability to concentrate are common effects of trauma. Someone who is being interviewed about a severely negative experience may lose their train of thought, contradict themselves, sound confused, or generally feel their brain get "fuzzy." That can make it more challenging to conduct a typical fact-checking call with them.

People often assume and expect that we will be able to recollect major events in our lives with clear and unwavering accuracy and that this determines the "truth" of what happened...However, traumatic events such as sexual assaults, are encoded (converted) differently than more routine, everyday experiences in life. It is well known within the scientific and psychological communities that human memory and recall do not function like a tape recorder, faithfully recording events later to be recalled on command. Our memories are fallible and have gaps and inconsistencies. As a result, we recall and narrate traumatic events differently than routine events.

—Lori Haskell and Melanie Randall, "The Impact of Trauma on Adult Sexual Assault Victims," report submitted to the Department of Justice Canada (2019)

When approached without compassion, fact-checking can do more harm than good. Questions about corroboration and proof can make the source feel that they are being blamed or that the fact checker needlessly doubts their experience. During a standard fact-checking call, the source may be reminded of their experience being questioned by a police officer or a courtroom lawyer and may consequently experience secondary victimization. Asking the source abrupt, blunt questions about their trauma for the sake of fact-checking can also send them back to the traumatic event without support or warning; it can cause what Kate Sloan, a journalist who has written extensively about sexual trauma, calls "psychological overwhelm," thereby cutting the conversation short.

A recent survey of seventy-one homicide and traffic fatality survivors in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand found that, among respondents' forty complaints about the media, the most common complaint (made by 53.5 percent of respondents) was that the media had contributed to their trauma.

In the hours and days after a traumatic event, memories are being processed by the survivor. This is a natural part of the brain's response to trauma, but these memories can sometimes get "locked" in a loop that leads to more serious long-term mental health consequences. Questions from journalists about the trauma event can sometimes affect the way those memories are embedded, and the nature of the memories themselves.

Questions or discussion about how the person was powerless are likely to lead to that feeling of powerlessness [and] being stuck in that memory loop.

—Kimina Lyall, "Interviewing in the Aftermath of Trauma," Dart Center for Journalism & Trauma (2022)

Miscommunication about standards and a lack of flexibility in the fact-checking process can lead to feelings of unfairness and disrespect. In some cases, the strict notion of truth that undergirds traditional fact-checking practices can feel like a perpetuation of the violence that marginalized communities have experienced at the hands of their oppressors: fact-checking may be interpreted as an unreasonable demand for members of the community to "prove their truth" with corroborating evidence.

The historical mistrust that many racialized communities have of the media is justified. There have been a lot of racist untruths and misinformation and white saviourism in Canadian media, which makes it fair that people might feel disrespected by the idea that you want to verify their information. But, to me, telling stories fairly and well means ensuring accuracy. There have been enough memoirs and bios that have been fudged or invented that to not fact-check something by a racialized writer is to risk adding to the misinformation about their community.

—Denise Balkissoon, Ontario Bureau Chief, The Narwhal

The fact checker's responsibilities toward sources who have experienced trauma therefore pull in two directions: their methodology must be flexible enough to accommodate the effects of trauma and the difficulties it may pose for fact-checking, but it must also be rigorous enough to produce a work of journalism that strives to accurately represent the source's experience in all of its nuances and details. This does not mean that respecting a source who has experienced trauma precludes fact-checking their story to the same extent as other stories. As we emphasized in Chapter Six, simply asking questions for the purpose of verification doesn't entail questioning the validity of someone's experience. To the contrary, creating a double standard for certain sources does no one any favours—especially considering the importance that people place on the accurate representation of their experiences. But it's also important to uphold the Collaboration Principle.

Speaking with a journalist about personal trauma is a serious decision: if someone has chosen to do so, it's likely because they see value in their story being told publicly. Winburn notes that most victims of violence who speak with media consider accurate coverage a crucially important part of the "contract" between journalist and source. In that same survey of homicide and traffic fatality survivors, respondents' second most common complaint (35.2 percent) was the publication of inaccurate information.

As Lisa Taylor, an Associate Professor of journalism at Toronto Metropolitan University, puts it, "If you care about victims and you believe that trauma changes us, that gives you a greater obligation to fact-check where you can around the source's story of sexual assault, not a reduced obligation." The question is not whether traumatic stories should be fact-checked but rather how to do so in a trauma-informed way.

Consider the case of Rolling Stone's 2014 feature, "A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA," which told the story of a student who had allegedly been sexually assaulted at a frat party at the University of Virginia in 2012. Soon after the story's publication, the magazine was forced to effectively retract it because of factual inaccuracies; the fact-checking process had been neither thorough nor sufficient. An independent review of the situation was conducted by the Columbia Journalism School over the following months; the reviewers found that Rolling Stone had "set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine's editors to reconsider publishing [the main source's] narrative so prominently, if at all."

The Rolling Stone editor who had primarily worked on the story told the Columbia Journalism School reviewers that they had acted this way largely because "we were too deferential to our rape victim...We should have been much tougher, and in not doing that, we maybe did her a disservice." His response implied that the editorial team had been faced with a choice: either respect their source's wishes or fact-check the story properly. But, as the reviewers noted, this analysis is misguided. "The explanation that Rolling Stone failed because it deferred to a victim cannot adequately account for what went wrong...The editors made judgments about attribution, fact-checking and verification that greatly increased their risks of error but had little or nothing to do with protecting [the main source's] position."

The story failed because the Rolling Stone team misunderstood what trauma-informed fact-checking entails—or rather decided that such a thing was simply not possible. We think that it is possible. The major fault was that Rolling Stone's editorial team did not ensure that necessary conversations between the reporter, fact checker, and subject of the story—about what the fact-checking process would entail for the subject and others, to which verification standards the publication would hold her story, and what possible accommodations were available to her—had taken place.

Problems arise when the terms of the [contract] between survivor and journalist are not spelled out. Kristen Lombardi, who spent a year and a half reporting the Center for Public Integrity's series on campus sexual assault, said she made it explicit to the women she interviewed that the reporting process required her to obtain documents, collect evidence and talk to as many people involved in the case as possible, including the accused. She prefaced her interviews by assuring the women that she believed in them but that it was in their best interest to make sure there were no questions about the veracity of their accounts. She also allowed victims some control, including determining the time, place and pace of their interviews. If a woman was not ready for such a process, Lombardi said, she was prepared to walk away.

—Sheila Coronel, Steve Coll, and Derek Kravitz, "Rolling Stone's investigation: 'A failure that was avoidable,'" Columbia Journalism Review (2015)

Although Rolling Stone's original intent had been to expose the bureaucracy that prevents many university and college students from coming forward with allegations of sexual violence on campus, the magazine's fact-checking failings meant that the article was instead engulfed in a narrative of lost credibility and poor reporting. Of course, this was nearly a decade ago, and many aspects of the magazine's fact-checking process have likely changed. However, this case shows that avoiding rigorous practices of verification may only subject a survivor of trauma to greater scrutiny, skepticism, and other harms (including lawsuits) in the future. Indeed, Rolling Stone's retraction of the story was interpreted by some as evidence for the (false) narrative that "women lie about sexual assault."

It's largely because of this case that we began thinking of fact-checking as the ethical foundation of trauma-informed journalism. Journalists are not always the arbiters of truth, nor are they the owners of others' stories. But, when fact-checking is done compassionately, it is an integral part of a journalistic practice founded on relationships of trust and understanding, and it gives agency to sources who have experienced harm.

Compassionate Fact-Checking

Several guides have been published in the past decade on the methodology of trauma-informed journalism. The Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma is an established authority in this domain, and it is the source of many helpful resources that have informed this chapter.

Trauma-informed guidelines for journalists typically focus on interviewing and reporting practices during or right after violent events, such as mass shootings, natural disasters, and war. However, we believe the standards articulated in these guides should be applied more broadly, including to people who have experienced intergenerational trauma, collective trauma, racial trauma, and other effects of systemic injustice. (For clear definitions of different possible conditions related to trauma, see the Dart Center's Style Guide for Trauma-Informed Journalism.)

The Dart Center notes that "trauma is a complex and ambiguous noun" and that journalists should "avoid generalized use of 'trauma' as a shorthand that may pathologize ordinary grief or distress." In other words: for scientists and physicians, trauma is a technical term meant to designate a specific condition, but it is now often used more broadly to describe the experience of anyone who has suffered—so much so that its conditions of application are no longer clear, and the word has lost some of its usefulness.

Taking these considerations into account, we want to note that, despite the widespread use of the trauma-informed designation in this guide and others, we do not mean for these guidelines to apply only to sources who have received a professional diagnosis of PTSD, for example. The scope of this chapter is much broader than what trauma-informed fact-checking may imply. We mean to articulate guidelines for what we call compassionate fact-checking, the kind of fact-checking methodology that should apply to any journalistic work that aims to tell a story that involves someone's experience of harm. This includes reporting on sources who have experienced trauma of any kind, who are victims of crime (whether this has been established by the courts or not), who have been marginalized or discriminated against, who live in precarious housing conditions, who face health challenges, who are immigrants or refugees, and who have experienced institutional or interpersonal abuse, among others.

Compassionate fact-checking does not entail treating certain sources as victims who need protection or a "light touch," nor does it require sacrificing accuracy for the sake of ethics. Instead, it aims to give agency to sources while ensuring that the standard of factual accuracy that is required to call something journalism is met. Each story a fact checker works on will be different: it is up to the fact checker, in collaboration with the story's editorial team and sources, to determine where and when these guidelines apply.

Incorporating Compassionate Fact-Checking into the Editorial Process

When fact-checking stories about lived experience, it is vital that you adhere to the Collaboration Principle whenever appropriate, and within reason, you should give sources a choice about how you will fact-check their story of trauma (but not whether you will check the facts you publish). Do so by having an open conversation with the source about the fact-checking process before it begins, asking them what they need, and telling them what you need in return. All the while, you should never needlessly show skepticism toward someone's story of trauma, even if a critical eye is required for fact-checking.

You may be skeptical openly about something a politician tells you to your face, but a person who shares something personal doesn't merit that skepticism without cause. If you have found other things that negate what they told you or raise questions, that's when you can say, 'I noticed in the police report...' But I don't think you can approach a personal traumatic story with skepticism without cause.

—Jan Winburn, Mentor, MFA in Narrative Non-Fiction, University of Georgia

Imagine that you just received your next fact-checking assignment: a draft of a completed story, detailed annotations, a folder of documentary sources, and a list of people to call. How can you determine whether compassionate fact-checking considerations apply?

One easy answer is: the reporter will have told you so. They are responsible for noting in their research package all sources who may require special care, and they should have already applied trauma-informed principles to their own reporting methodology. If this isn't the case, however, it is your responsibility to identify sources who require special care—and to do so before you begin the fact-checking process.

There is no easy way of determining whether a story falls under the "compassionate fact-checking" category, but here are some guiding questions:

Questions for Identifying Compassionate Fact-Checking Requirements

Is someone in the story speaking about an experience of theirs that was traumatic or is otherwise sensitive?
Is someone in the story speaking about someone else's (or a community's) traumatic or sensitive experience?
Does the story mention someone's traumatic or sensitive experience without the reporter having spoken with the people involved?
Does the story mention interpersonal, institutional, or systemic violence, discrimination, or abuse of any kind?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then your fact-checking assignment is likely an appropriate case for incorporating, to some extent, the accommodations discussed in this chapter.

(If the reporter does mention someone else's story without having spoken to them, and if this is not addressed in the reporter's research package, then it's a red flag that the reporter may not have done enough research for their story. If the accused has decided not to speak with journalists, that should also be fact-checked and noted in the story.)

The next thing you will do, before reaching out to any sources included in the research package, is arrange a conversation with the story's editorial team—including the handling editor, reporter, and head of research. (See the Nine Steps to Fact-Checking Lived Experience for an outline of the editorial process involved.) During this preliminary meeting, ask about the reporter's relationship with sources, the sources' respective needs or sensitivities, and what kinds of conversations they have already had about the fact-checking process. Do the sources know that fact-checking is going to happen? Did they agree to it in advance, knowing at least broadly what it would entail?

Journalism is founded on trust, and even more so when a work of journalism touches on someone's personal experience of trauma. The reporter may have spent months or longer establishing a relationship with the people whose stories are featured in their work. Ideally, the reporter will have noted the details of their consent conversations with every source (including any off-the-record agreements) and shared that information in their research package. In some cases, it may be appropriate for them to introduce you to a sensitive source directly, explain your role in the editorial process, and explain the benefits of participating in fact-checking (it is an opportunity for the source to make sure the story is told as accurately as possible). This will establish a base level of trust and familiarity between you and the source before your work gets started.

Once introductions have been made, however, the reporter should generally step back from the fact-checking process. This transfer of trust between reporter, source, and fact checker is crucial for any trauma-informed approach to fact-checking. Your first responsibility as a fact checker before reaching out to a sensitive source is to find out whether the necessary conversations have taken place beforehand, so that they are not surprised (or worse) when they hear from you.

One producer for a podcast that focuses on telling personal stories told us that the people they've interviewed sometimes back out of a story at the last minute, after they're contacted by a fact checker. The experience of being asked highly personal or sensitive questions by a stranger, without understanding why such questions are necessary, can make sources "uneasy" and cause them to lose trust in the journalistic process. In response, the podcast team is considering approaching fact-checking for personal stories very differently, perhaps by conducting fewer fact-checking calls with sources. We don't think ending fact-checking interviews altogether is the right solution, but these difficulties show just how important it is to make sure that the source knows, ahead of time, who will be contacting them and why—and doing so requires collaboration between the fact checker and the rest of the editorial team. Of course, sources change their minds about wanting to be featured in a work of journalism for a variety of reasons (see Chapter Eight), but the chances of this happening unexpectedly are certainly mitigated by open communication with the source about expectations throughout the editorial process.

The preliminary editorial meeting helps you get a better sense of which sources will require which kinds of considerations during fact-checking and perhaps be introduced to them by the reporter in a gentle way. But it also helps with two other important aspects of compassionate fact-checking: knowing which accommodations are possible and the necessary level of corroboration before beginning a fact-checking conversation with a source.

You should speak with the editorial team about what kinds of fact-checking accommodations they are prepared to offer given the nature of the story and your practical constraints. That way, you won't end up promising something to a source that you can't actually provide—for example, arranging for a fact-checking interview to be conducted by someone of a certain gender or background, at a certain time or place, or over email instead of by phone. The head of research has final say on which accommodations are appropriate in particular situations, but we provide some general guidelines in the next section.

You should also discuss with the head of research, editor, and reporter the kinds of corroborating sources that may be required to fact-check someone's story. Find out how much work the reporter has done in that regard: Do you already have everything you need? If not, does the source know that you may ask for more, either from them or from others? Have they expressed to the reporter any boundaries about corroborating research, for example not reaching out to certain people or quoting from certain documents? In the case of sexual violence, for example if an individual who says they were sexually assaulted identifies someone (by name or otherwise) as their assailant or as a witness to the crime, the publication is obligated to reach out to that person if it wants to include that information in the published story (see Chapter Six).

If you are unsure about whether you will have to contact other sources to verify someone's story (such as the perpetrator or witnesses), you should discuss this with your handling editor and the head of research during the preliminary editorial conversation so that you can communicate with the source properly about it afterward. You may want to confirm with the reporter that they have advised the source to expect a fact-checking call and that they have not undersold your responsibility to check the facts of their story.

Finally, the editorial team should discuss in advance the limitations of your fact-checking work. At what point should the accommodations end and a story (or part of a story) be pulled from publication because it could not be properly fact-checked? Some people may be ready to tell their story to a reporter in a private and comfortable setting but not to have it fact-checked, which may feel more invasive or impersonal. You and the rest of the editorial team need to consider these possibilities—and, sometimes, the result of such conversations is that journalists do not publish stories in as much detail as they would like or at all. If a story can't be fact-checked, then it can't be published as journalism in a fact-checked publication. That's okay. In fact, if a source is too uncomfortable with the fact-checking process to continue, there's a good chance that they would also struggle with the scrutiny that follows publication, so refraining from publishing the story may be in the subject's best interest. (One alternative in rare cases is that the source does not participate in fact-checking and consents to you considering all of the internal facts pertaining to them in the story as already checked; this might work as long as you have other sources that can confirm all of the external facts involved.)

It's important to remember the original intention of an article and why we are telling a certain story; if the purpose all along was to provide a platform for someone to speak, then we should not devalue their voice later on by neglecting the fact-checking process or failing to inform them about the possible consequences of participation. You should always be transparent with sources about whatever decision you have made or may make in this respect.

The Pre-Fact-Checking Conversation

If someone is cited in a story (whether on the record or otherwise), fact-checking guidelines stipulate that you reach out to them and arrange a fact-checking call. (As noted in Chapter Three, the only exception is for information about a high-profile person that is already in the public record.) When trauma-informed considerations apply, contact the source in question and suggest, first, a discussion about fact-checking.

This is the pre-fact-checking conversation, as introduced in Chapter Six. Some survivors are very willing to speak about their experiences and require little support. Others appreciate the time to get to know their interviewers and ask questions about the process beforehand. The pre-fact-checking conversation will allow you to establish your own relationship of trust with the source, agree on some boundaries and guidelines for future conversations, and establish a safe space for fact-checking. You can then schedule the fact-checking call for a later date—or even later the same day, if they feel ready.

Your first contact with the source should be over email, ideally, so that they do not feel surprised or pressured and they have a choice of when and how to respond. This may be an email you send to them directly or one you send in response to an introduction by the reporter. If you have only a phone number, it may help to have the reporter call the source first, since they already have an established relationship, and let them know that you'll be in touch at a specific date and time that works for them. The important thing is that you avoid cold calling.

When you do speak with them for the first time, introduce yourself, explain why you're reaching out, and provide your contact information. Below are the topics you should discuss during this preliminary call, before asking the source whether they will be available to meet for a fact-checking call in the coming week (or whatever timeline is appropriate for your circumstances).

Keep a record of your preliminary conversation with a source. If you want to record it, ask them first if they would be comfortable with that; otherwise, tell them that you will take written notes. Make sure you have clear notes of what you've discussed and agreed on during the call. Save these records as part of your fact-checking folder.

Introduce yourself and explain your role in the editorial process.

Begin the call by describing your relationship to the reporter and publication and any pertinent biographical details (for example, your professional experience, or that you've worked on similar stories in the past). Tell the source when the story is planned for publication and by when your fact-checking needs to be complete. Explain why you are speaking with them and what purposes the fact-checking process is meant to serve. Don't rush—being conversational will give the source a chance to process the information you're presenting and help them feel comfortable asking any questions they may have.

These introductions are important for setting the tone and helping the source understand the necessity of fact-checking as well as your respective roles and responsibilities. Before having to engage formally in the fact-checking process, they should know who you are, what you have to offer, and what you're asking of them. Of course, ideally, the reporter has already had this conversation, but it's better for you to be repetitive than to fact-check with a source who is not prepared or did not consent. And it's possible that some details in the story have changed since the reporter last spoke with the source.

As explained in previous chapters, we think of fact-checking as a way of being transparent with the source about which details of their trauma are going to be made public. It should therefore be a process that helps them, even if it makes them uncomfortable (though you should do your best to minimize that discomfort). Emphasize in conversation that fact-checking someone's story is meant as a sign of respect—not as a way to shame, blame, or doubt them and their experiences. But it is also important to delineate boundaries and explain requirements: the story does need to be fact-checked if it's going to be published.

In the context of a whole community that has experienced trauma, there's probably going to be a great deal of skepticism toward the journalistic process...I think you should always say, "I'm a reporter, this is the time I have today," before you even start the interview—"This is what's going to happen, I'm going to use some quotes to include in the piece, are you okay with that?"... In that process, you're also articulating the limits of your role: I'm not a therapist, not a lawyer. Acknowledging the limits of your knowledge and expertise can be counterintuitive, but it's really humbling and very important. And then you should get very specific about what you're asking of people as their contribution.

—Jackie Wong, Senior Editor, The Tyee
Give an overview of the piece to be published.

Even if you think the source is already familiar with the story in which they're featured, present them with a brief overview. Give them an impression of whom else the reporter spoke with, what kinds of sources are being used to establish facts, and the general takeaway of the piece. This provides a feeling of agency: they should know the context in which their personal experience is being presented and the role it plays in the final journalistic product. You should also confirm with them whether they are named in the story and how they are referred to. If they spoke with the reporter on background or under a pseudonym, confirm that agreement with them (see Chapter Three).

This is generally good practice, in keeping with informed-consent: these kinds of details should never be hidden from a source, even if they're uncomfortable to share. Remember that compassionate fact-checking is meant to apply to stories about people whom journalism is trying to empower. But no journalistic source should ever be surprised when reading a story about themselves—even when the story is a negative one. Going over these details will also lay a foundation for your conversation with the source about what kinds of information need to be checked and how you will go about doing so.
Be clear about what they should expect and about your own expectations.

The interview: Explain to the source that it is standard fact-checking practice for every person quoted or named in a story to undergo a fact-checking interview. The fact checker's role is to ensure that everyone who appears in the article has the opportunity to address the information written about them and to ask for confirmation or clarification about the information the reporter has gathered. These fact-checking conversations are meant to ensure the fairness and accuracy of everything in the article that has been attributed to someone. They confirm that what someone is quoted as saying accurately represents what they meant to say in the context they said it.

This means you will have a list of questions to ask them about their sensitive or traumatic experience as well as anything else pertaining to them in the article. But you should also mention that you won't be able to direct all of your questions about the piece their way; you will also call anyone else who has been named in the story and offer them the same opportunity.

Corroboration: Explain why, in most cases, fact-checking involves the use of supporting documentation. This is important for the source to understand. Have an open conversation with them about what fact-checking their story would entail in terms of sources. (The information in Chapter Six can help you determine exactly what sources you need in order to corroborate and verify someone's story.)

If a source says that they filed a witness statement to their local police station, for example, you will need to reach out to the police station to confirm it—or at least check that such a story is credible. But you can also confirm the story in other ways.

Knowing that a reporter and fact checker will reach out to everyone involved may affect a source's decision to tell their story to journalists. This is why it is important to ensure that they are aware of the requirements of participation before fact-checking begins.
Offer accommodations and support.

You've now told the source what fact-checking their story will entail and explained why doing so is necessary. Next, you should discuss what kinds of accommodations are possible to make the fact-checking process as pain-free as possible. Ask which, if any, accommodations would help them, and plan the next steps with them accordingly.

We provide a list of possible accommodations in the next section, and you should have already determined boundaries with the editorial team before making contact with the source.

Finally, if you think it is appropriate (often for only the most extreme cases), you can check in with the source about whether they have a support plan for before, during, and after the fact-checking call. It is not up to you to determine what that support plan is—that's their decision to make, hopefully in conjunction with their support network, which might include their family, friends, or therapist.

Making Fact-Checking Accommodations

Here is a non-exhaustive list of the kinds of fact-checking accommodations you might consider offering a sensitive source. None of these accommodations changes the facts or their verification requirements for publication; however, they may minimize further harm during the fact-checking process.

The timeline:
One way to provide comfort and power to the source during the fact-checking process is to give them control over the fact-checking timeline.

Reach out to the source as early as possible (but not until you have met with the editorial team, if relevant) and give them an idea of the story's publication date. Give as much advance notice as possible so that they have plenty of time to prepare and plan their support system accordingly—for example by letting their therapist, friends, or family members know when the call will take place or making sure that they're not scheduled to work right afterward. Never cold call someone to discuss a sensitive or traumatic experience unless they've explicitly said that it's okay to do so.

If a source tells you that they need more time to prepare for fact-checking or that they need to break up the fact-checking interview over several sessions, be prepared to do so—even if it sometimes means delaying the story's publication date. You can even suggest doing so if it seems like something the source may benefit from.
The medium:
Typically, a fact-checking interview is done over the phone. But phone calls can sometimes be an inappropriate medium, especially when you will be asking a source difficult questions about their experience of trauma. After having discussed and agreed on possible accommodations with the editorial team, ask the source whether they feel capable and willing to be fact-checked over the phone. Explain why a phone call is typically considered useful (because of the open conversational dynamic and the opportunity it provides to check nuance and discuss the details of the source's role in the piece) but mention that other options are available.

Depending on the circumstances, some possibilities might be to send questions via email, to send them first via email and then arrange a phone call later, to discuss them via video chat, or to meet in person. You can be creative about accommodations here: the priority is to make sure that every relevant fact published in the story has been checked directly with the source. This ensures that their experience and feelings are accurately represented in the final version of the story. (Another option, of course, is to simply send the source an excerpt of the piece for them to check themselves. We will discuss this possibility in Chapter Eight.)

It should also be noted that different communities use different communication platforms. This can be for various reasons, but often it's because of a lack of access to internet or cell phone service. Adjusting the process to meet the source's needs is a way of being more inclusive and accessible and of helping people feel comfortable, respected, and safe.

You might also rely on recordings or transcripts of the source's previous conversations with the reporter to check their quotes. This is not ideal, however, because it prevents you from checking for nuance, context, or factual updates, and it won't allow you to discuss the context of the story with the source. But you could always do that separately and then check their direct quotes with the recording if they agree. If some details of the source's experience have already been published in another article, you might also ask them whether that story is accurate and offer that, if they agree, you could check those facts using that article and contact them only for clarifications. The same can be done using transcripts of court proceedings, for example, and doing so may prevent their having to rehash traumatic details unnecessarily. But, if there are items in the piece you're fact-checking that aren't mentioned in other sources, you will still need to check them somehow.

As long as all the facts are addressed and there is an opportunity for asking the source clarificatory questions, many possibilities are open. Whatever you decide, you need to have a record of your agreement with the source for your files—whether audio, written, or some other form.

Journalists need to acknowledge the many ways of being and knowing outside of phone calls—DMs, emails, and other options are just as effective. How does that person communicate in their daily life? And are we meeting them where they are? Facebook, for example, is a platform that many of us love to hate these days, but it is also sometimes people's primary way of connecting with others.

—Jackie Wong, Senior Editor, The Tyee

Especially when we're talking about stuff that's triggering, it can be easier to have that conversation over email. Because, if your sexual trauma is being brought up, it's really easy to go through a psychological overwhelm. The written medium gives space. I've also had interviewees who were super nervous and socially anxious and who would prefer to chat over email.

—Kate Sloan, freelance journalist

If the source is comfortable with it, and meeting in person is not possible, I always try to arrange a video call. Seeing a person often allows both the source and the reporter (or fact checker) to make a more meaningful, human connection—you're not just a disembodied voice on a phone. Plus, we feel trauma—and empathy—with our whole bodies. As reporters and fact checkers, our jobs are to ask the tough questions and to have difficult conversations. But that shouldn't mean adding pain to already painful experiences—seeing somebody, and being able to do something as simple as making eye contact, can go a long way toward showing someone we are truly listening to their story and treating it with care.

—Lauren McKeon, Deputy Editor, Toronto Life
Support:

Some sources feel more comfortable during a fact-checking interview if they are accompanied by someone, such as a friend, family member, or social worker. This is completely fine, as long as that support person doesn't answer questions for them. (It's important to be aware of the power dynamics between the source and their chosen support person, as discussed in Chapter Eight.) The source may also feel safer if the conversation takes place at a certain location or time of day, or if the fact checker is of a certain gender, ethnicity, or professional background. As much as possible, you and the publication should try to accommodate such requests.

If the source asks for the fact-checking call itself to be conducted by someone in particular, you will have to use your judgment (in consultation with the editorial team) to decide whether to accommodate the request. It will of course depend on circumstance: most of the time, for example, it would not be appropriate for another source in the story to conduct the call or for the reporter to do so.

You can also agree on a detailed support plan with someone before your fact-checking interview. You can offer, for example, to check in with them ahead of the scheduled call to make sure they're still comfortable and willing to participate, to check in with them throughout the interview, and to arrange scheduling or other practical matters with a third party. However, as noted above, it's important to remember the limitations of your role: you are not a therapist or a lawyer, and you can neither help the source recover from trauma nor provide them with legal advice.

Always have a list of resources (such as contact information for local trauma support centres or 24-hour call lines) at hand to share with the source if they ask.

Often, when we're reporting on the harms a community has experienced, we're reporting about, not for, the people who have experienced that harm. Disaster reporting aside, little reporting is focused on addressing the practical information needs of people or communities in crisis. But several journalists told me that, as they went about their reporting, they encountered opportunities to bridge sources' information gaps, if only in small ways....

"If someone reaches out to me and they're struggling, which happens, I will try to give them all the phone numbers that they can call to get help," says [journalist Rory] Linnane. "And I think that's something that not only is OK to do but that we should do."

But Terry Parris Jr., former ProPublica engagement editor, offers a caution: Avoid recommending a specific provider. As journalists, we don't know enough to recommend one provider over another, and a specific recommendation could put the journalist on the hook if the person has a bad experience, he says.

—Natalie Yahr, Why Should I Tell You?: A Guide to Less-Extractive Reporting (2019)
How external facts are checked:

In certain cases, you may be able to discuss and negotiate with the source how certain facts pertaining to their experiences are checked. (See Chapter Six for a description of the kinds of personal facts that require corroboration.)

If you're fact-checking someone's story about discrimination they experienced at work, for example, you will need to schedule a call with them to confirm the reporter's representation of their experience, but you will also need to confirm that they are indeed employed where they say they are. You can do so in a variety of ways—say, by contacting their employer, by speaking with other employees, or by looking at their paystubs. Context, including the source's comfort and safety level, changes what kinds of sources are appropriate.

Ideally, the reporter will have already done the legwork here. But you should still ask the source if they have suggestions for how to check certain facts before you suggest your own methods. If, for example, they do not want you to confirm a fact with the person who harassed them at work, but that fact can potentially be confirmed in other ways and that person is not named or otherwise identifiable in the story, there's no reason you couldn't accommodate that request. They cannot prevent you from doing your due diligence and contacting anyone who is named in a story, however.

Other possibilities include calling friends and family, reading someone's journal, or speaking with someone's therapist to confirm someone's experience. This may be more appropriate—and accurate—than relying on a police report or court transcripts, for example.

Whenever relevant, you should disclose your modified fact-checking practices to readers in the published story. Of course, this is not always relevant—you may not need to specify that you fact-checked with the source over Skype instead of over the phone. But it is necessary when knowing about the accommodation may make a difference to how readers will assess the information presented in the story. For example, if someone asks that you fact-check their description of a physical assault they experienced based on the police report of the incident instead of your speaking with them, then you should be transparent with readers about the fact that you're quoting the police report, with the source's consent, because they asked you to—you didn't confirm that description directly.

Below is a list of accommodations that typically cannot be made, even in the context of compassionate fact-checking. You should explain to an interviewed source why they can't be made, outline what accommodations can be made instead, and make sure the source understands and agrees to the journalistic process before you begin to fact-check their story.

If the person mistakenly had the impression that some of these accommodations—such as not reaching out to the person they are explicitly accusing of wrongdoing—could be made, that's a red flag. It means that they may not have given their informed consent to participate in the story, since they did not realize what fact-checking would entail. You may still be able to adjust the story by making various modifications to the fact-checking process and to the published text. But, if the story's subject does not want fact-checking to proceed in any form (or to make any modifications to the story in order to circumvent certain kinds of fact-checking), then fact-checked journalism may not be the right venue for their story.

The necessity of checking the facts that will be published:

If a source does not want you to check certain facts, you should make sure they understand that you consequently cannot publish them. (Though there is some leeway when it comes to internal facts.) Sometimes, details that the source does not want fact-checked can be removed from the story without too much trouble. In other cases, omitting those details will mean cutting that source's contributions to the piece entirely. Either way, you cannot publish a statement about an external fact without having checked it in some way.
How you fact-check with other people:

As discussed, in most cases a source can decide the method by which they are fact-checked. However, they cannot stipulate how fact-checking will happen with other people involved in the story—that's for those people to decide. Each source has agency over their own participation in fact-checking.
The fact checker's independence:

We established the importance of the separation between fact checker and reporter in Chapters Two and Three: the reporter should not be the fact checker, and they can't conduct the fact-checking interview by themselves. The same principle applies to sources: one source in a story shouldn't sit in on the fact-checking call of another source.

This can become complicated when a source is under some sort of guardianship or if their chosen support person also happens to be part of the story. In these cases, it's important to be aware of the power dynamics between sources and consider how one's presence may influence the answers of another. Ideally, every fact-checking call is conducted independently—and this should rarely be modified for the sake of compassionate fact-checking.
Journalists' legal responsibilities:

These vary based on jurisdiction, but they generally involve reaching out to everyone identifiable in a story, doing our due diligence, and being rigorous and responsible. Understanding libel law and the requirements (both legal and ethical) of responsible communication is key, as these can rarely be circumvented.

There's also a legal responsibility with survivors of sexual assault. I actually once had to kill a story at [a publication I used to work for] because I felt the reporter wasn't making it legally airtight. I fact-checked the survivor's story myself, and I really came away believing her and believing that the person she was accusing had the pattern of behaviour she said they did. But the reporter hadn't done the background research that's required from a legal standpoint. This would include seeing if there are friends and relatives whom the survivor told about their experience at the time and who are willing to attest to that in court if necessary. You also have to ask if the survivor is up to tracking down any police or medical documents that journalists can't access. Reporters and editors can decide to keep certain details out of a story to respect someone's privacy, but we still need to have proof of those details available as legal backup. That's the only time in my career I've had our media lawyer advise me to kill a story. The fact checker, who was very thorough, also thought that the reporter's reluctance to cross these t's was a red flag. It's so sensitive.

—Denise Balkissoon, Ontario Bureau Chief, The Narwhal

How to Conduct Background Research Compassionately

Regardless of the circumstances and the person, you need to fact-check the external facts of someone's story that you plan to publish. Do as much fact-checking as possible without relying on the source. (We discussed "points of verification" at length in Chapter Six.) As mentioned, propose using a previous article to fact-check sensitive details if they don't want to go through them again—though you must make sure they have read that article carefully in order to confirm its accuracy.

If a source's story plays an important role in the piece and is told in considerable detail, it's a good idea to watch, read, and listen to as many interviews that source has already done as you can. Know as much as you can about the facts of what happened to them and what they've already told people. Scour their social media. Try to keep them out of the dark places they don't need to go by giving them the option to avoid retelling facts that you may be able to confirm elsewhere.

Whatever you find through documentary research you should discuss with the source in the interview as well. But don't bring things up that they have explicitly said they do not want to discuss or hear about—for example, the detailed results of a rape kit that they chose not to read but shared with you for fact-checking purposes. You should be clear, however, about what you will publish based on documentary sources and whether it conflicts with what they have said themselves.

Use the details you're given, not what you assume. I had a reporter I trusted through mutual colleagues try and recreate the scene of my shooting. In doing so, she made up details like a pool of blood coming out of my coworker that never existed and my hands shaking as I texted my parents. When I asked her editor how she could have printed something so graphic and exploitative, she said she wanted to show how brave I was. That's not the way to do it.

—Selene San Felice, "I survived a mass shooting. Here's my advice to other journalists," Poynter (2019)

Do not contact people with whom the reporter did not speak and tell them about the source's personal traumatic story in order to confirm facts—at least not without first checking with the reporter and getting permission from the source. You don't know whom the source has and has not shared their story with, and you could put them in an uncomfortable or potentially unsafe situation by divulging it to someone before they've had the chance to.

Journalists Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey describe such a case in the book She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement. Kantor, in an attempt to speak with a reluctant source about their alleged experience with Harvey Weinstein, approached the source's husband—and then realized he had no idea about his wife's experience. "He really doesn't know, Jodi realized with dread. This woman had never told her own husband. All these years later, the confidentiality clauses had left all three of them in bizarre positions: a woman barred from sharing her own experiences with her spouse. A husband standing incredulously in his own driveway, learning his wife's secrets from a stranger." As a fact checker, you never want to end up in such a situation.

How to Conduct Fact-Checking Interviews Compassionately

After negotiating the fact-checking process with the source during the pre-fact-checking conversation, schedule a call with them (if you decided on a call as opposed to an email exchange or other option, which will be the case most of the time). Make sure it is a time that works for them, and send them a reminder the day before to check that they're still comfortable and available.

Before the interview begins, ask the source if they have any questions for you, and ask how they feel about the interview. It's important that you rely on your intuition and follow the source's lead regarding the pace of the call; they may require all of the accommodations listed here, or they may require nothing at all. You won't be able to determine the right approach to speaking with someone just by reading about their experience—you may feel uncomfortable or awkward about something, but that doesn't mean the source will feel the same way. It won't serve either of you if you're so delicate or tense that they pick up on your discomfort.

If appropriate, remind the source that they can pause or end the interview at any time. Ask them if they're still comfortable discussing what they discussed with the reporter (or what you outlined in the pre-interview call, or what you sent them over email). Reiterate that they don't have to answer any question they don't want to answer and they can skip questions that they find unnecessary or uncomfortable. They can also end the phone call at any time or take a break and continue later on. However, if they do not confirm certain facts, then those facts may not be included in the story.

It is helpful in these cases to write out your questions exactly as you will ask them over the phone. If you feel that the call will be challenging or sensitive, you may also want to prepare a script for the beginning of the phone call, outlining all of the points included in this guide. If you're unsure about what you've written, how to word things, or what to say, show your prepared materials to the head of research or someone else before calling the source.

It is your responsibility to help the source "enter" and "exit" the interview as comfortably as possible. We suggest adding "buffer" or "safety" questions to the beginning and end of the list of questions so that you don't jump into a traumatic topic immediately or end the interview right after one. These can be basic questions about the source, their daily activities, what they're planning to do after the call, how they met the reporter, how they felt about the interview, etc.

When appropriate, explain why you are asking fact-checking questions before you ask them. It's helpful to categorize your questions according to subject area in your question document and even add subheadings so that you can tell the source when you're getting to a difficult section. When you are about to ask a sensitive question, warn them ahead of time so that they can prepare. Order your questions accordingly. Say things like: "We're now getting to the difficult part of the interview—I'm going to ask you questions about __."; "Do you want to take a break before we start?"; "Now I'm going to ask you about your descriptions of __; we can pause at any time. The first questions are about __."; "Thank you for that. Now I'm going to ask about __."; "That was the last question about __."

When you're interviewing someone who's experienced immense trauma like a mass shooting, you will take them down a dark path. Even if you try your best to ask questions that won't make them relive what they went through, they will. They may start talking about graphic details you didn't ask for and may not be able to stop. It doesn't matter if you had to take them down that path or not. Your interview shouldn't be over until you take them out. Have strategies ready to deploy when a source gets distressed or reacts negatively during their recounting and be ready to pull the string on the parachute. You may have to ask questions that won't give you answers you can use or get them to talk about something that isn't relevant to your story. But you'll gain more trust and make that person feel safer with you if you can leave them in a better place.

One of those strategies is getting to know your source beyond what happened to them or their loved one. Find out what makes them happy. Ask them what makes them feel empowered in their life or about their loved one's life, what's getting them through this time, has anything made them smile recently? Has a show or book or podcast become their escape? These questions will help your source, and will likely give you a better story.

—Selene San Felice, "I survived a mass shooting. Here's my advice to other journalists," Poynter (2019)

Remember how foreign a fact-checking call may feel—the tone could be quite different from that of the original interview. You will be asking questions about a potentially traumatic incident in a straightforward way that the source may never have experienced before. A fact checker might, in a single, relatively brief phone call, raise issues so sensitive and traumatic that they were revealed to the reporter through multiple conversations over a span of months. Be considerate and take your time. Speak slowly and be prepared to repeat yourself. Check in regularly about taking breaks. Phrase your questions carefully and concisely, and be as specific as possible, especially regarding any corrections (you don't want to have to call back later with clarifications).

It can make a huge difference to just convey that you understand that this is sensitive information. I really appreciated the person who called me to fact-check my stuff as a source. They were saying, "I know that this is a little uncomfortable to talk about," and that helps a lot. I think that the emotions involved in talking about your sexual history are different than those involved in talking about other things. People can revert to impulses and responses that aren't really in line with who they think they are, but you have to approach them as if they were a kid—lots of people experiencing emotional flashbacks are accessing a state that is essentially a younger version of themselves. I think that a lot of my approach to sex journalism is pouring more compassion and empathy and sympathy into the interviewing practices, always wanting to get into people's emotional realities. I just think affirmation makes a huge difference, especially since people hold another layer of shame where they feel ashamed of feeling shame.

—Kate Sloan, freelance journalist

Be transparent with sources about the language that will be used in the piece to describe their experiences, feelings, and thoughts. Giving sources agency over the facts that pertain to their trauma—including how they identify and describe their experiences—means conducting more verbatim fact-checking than is the norm. Pay attention to what kind of language they used during their original interview (for example, did they called themselves a victim or a survivor?) and try to echo that language in your fact-checking. (See Chapters Five and Six.)

Be mindful about how you feel using certain language during the interview: if you or the source feels uncomfortable using a term in the interview, then it probably shouldn't be used in the text of the article either.

Paying attention to the voice you're using, how you're using it, how you're interacting with these people is hugely important..."I want you to be able to tell your story the way you want to tell it. But I have to make sure that the things you said are still true."

—Sid Drmay, freelance journalist

If you're interviewing children who have experienced trauma, be careful to avoid using language that might upset them during the interview process. Washington Post reporter John Woodrow Cox devotes considerable time to pre-reporting and having conversations with caregivers to understand what questions and words to avoid. With all vulnerable people, but especially with children, considerations around language and style aren't just pertinent to the finished story—they matter throughout the entire reporting process.

—The Dart Center Style Guide for Trauma-Informed Journalism

Vicarious Trauma: Taking Care of the Fact Checker

It's important that you also take care of yourself when fact-checking a story that involves trauma. The Dart Center defines vicarious trauma as "psychological changes resulting from cumulative, empathetic engagement with trauma survivors in a professional context"—and it certainly applies to journalists and fact checkers.

Just because you're checking facts doesn't mean you can or should be entirely emotionally removed from the story you're working on. You and the rest of your editorial team are human beings, and it's very normal for you to be affected when fact-checking a story that involves trauma. As much as you should accommodate sources' boundaries and needs, you need to also be aware of your own—especially if your own personal experiences mean that you empathize with the source during a fact-checking interview about trauma.

In a Dart Center interview, journalist Duncan McCue discusses tips for journalists reporting on trauma, which we consider to be just as applicable to fact checkers:

Be clear with your team about the emotional toll that working on a story may take on you and what kinds of accommodations you may need (time, space, etc.). If you are a freelancer, you can have similar conversations with peers and find support through industry institutions.
Take care of yourself. Work-life balance is essential: do and think about other things after the workday. Partake in activities purely for your interest and enjoyment: exercise, art, reading, etc.
Build a network of friends and family whom you can rely on for support and encouragement. Some people also find it helpful to receive additional support from a mental health professional.

I have learned the hard way that covering traumatic stories—such as the residential school issue in Canada, or missing and murdered Indigenous women, or sexual abuse in our communities, or the list goes on and on and on—can take a toll on you as a journalist and as a human being. And if we don't take care of ourselves, if we don't say "no," if we don't rest, if we don't build up our resources spiritually or emotionally, then we can't do the work over the long term. I don't want to see that happen to young Indigenous journalists or non-Indigenous journalists who are covering this beat. If they are in it for the long term, then they need to make sure that they take care of themselves.

—Duncan McCue, Rogers Journalist-in-Residence at Toronto Metropolitan University, in an interview with the Dart Center (2021)