2. Fact-Checking As Part of the Editorial Process

In 2004, Sarah Harrison Smith wrote in The Fact Checker's Bible that "there are few, if any, absolute rules in fact-checking." This is true: most of the instructions in this guide are general, and they can be modified in different situations—in fact, we think they should be. Our purpose here is to articulate a reasoned standard. To be an effective fact checker, what matters is not your specific methodology (whether you use pens or highlighters, Google Docs or handwritten notes, phone calls or emails) but your adherence to the values of accuracy, transparency, and integrity.

In this chapter, we explain the purpose of fact-checking and provide guidelines for how to incorporate fact-checking into the editorial process. Many publications today cannot engage in fact-checking to the extent that their editorial staff would like or in the precise ways that we describe. But it's important to first understand what fact-checking looks like in the ideal case before determining how it should be practised by any individual publication. If the limitations that prevent most publications from thoroughly fact-checking their journalism today—namely a lack of time, funding, and resources—did not exist, we hope that the standards described in this guide would be the default. While the procedural details we outline are geared toward magazine production, they can be adapted to suit a variety of media, such as newspapers, podcasts, and documentaries.

Fact-Checking: What It Is and Why We Do It

Magazines developed editorial fact-checking largely to protect themselves against libel lawsuits. In Canada, libel is defined as a published or broadcast statement that is inaccurate and damages someone's reputation. In order to sue a journalist for libel, a plaintiff has to demonstrate that the published information damages their reputation; they do not need to prove that it is inaccurate. Rather, the onus is on the publication to show that the facts are true. A fact-checking folder, as described in Chapter Three, allows the publication to do just that. (Media law varies by region, and journalists should always consult with a media lawyer instead of making legal decisions based on this guide.)

In Canada, if the truth of a story can't be directly proven in court, a journalist can rely on a few other defences, including consent, fair comment, privilege, and responsible communication. We consider the responsible communication defence—which essentially requires journalists to be "diligent in trying to verify the allegation" before publication—to be the most relevant to the fact-checking process: it serves as a guide for conducting interviews and assessing a source list.

When working on a story, a fact checker verifies that every statement is accurate, but they also assess its sourcing and integrity. Has the reporter spoken with everyone involved and offered them a chance to respond? Has the publication been transparent about its methods and intentions? If not, it is partly the fact checker's job (as well as the editor's and the reporter's) to make sure that these essential steps are taken. Responsible communication ensures that facts are properly attributed and clarified, affording every relevant party a chance to speak without necessarily treating them as equally credible or falling back on flawed notions of "balance."

Legal considerations are important, but they are not the only motivation—or even the primary motivation—for editorial fact-checking. Fact-checking aims to produce rigorous journalism, hold people in power to account, and accurately report the news.

The credibility of a journalistic publication depends in part on its commitment to editorial fact-checking. By calling a reported story fact-checked, journalists are making a commitment to their sources, their readers, and their colleagues that they can back up every statement included in it. Once it is published, the work of journalism will consequently be considered an authoritative source on the topic at hand.

Internally, magazines usually rely on their own archives: once a fact has been checked and published, it may be used in another story without going through the same process of verification again. Any work of journalism, especially one that is known to have been fact-checked, may also become the basis for someone else's reporting. It may be included in a submission to the House of Commons, used as background evidence in a trial, cited in an encyclopedia, quoted by a politician, or used in many other ways as a primary source. Misstating a fact in a work of journalism today may mean introducing an error into the historical record for decades. (As you begin to fact-check, you will see how frequently this occurs.) On the other hand, catching an oft-repeated inaccuracy in fact-checking can help to rectify the historical record.

Most journalists think of editorial fact-checking as a way to catch assumptions and biases in a work of journalism before it is published. Of course, a fact checker can't catch everything, but if an unsubstantiated claim or chain of reasoning makes it into a story, it will hopefully be noticed when the fact checker asks, "How do you know this?"

These considerations inform how fact checkers should uphold the three essential values of fact-checking:

• Accuracy: fact checkers work diligently to ensure that the published story reflects the "fact of the matter" about a topic, whenever such a thing exists, and that the sources included in a story are (and feel, within reason) faithfully represented, even if they disagree with the journalist's perspective.

• Transparency: fact checkers and their colleagues work to understand the requirements and limitations of journalism, and publications share this information with sources and the public whenever appropriate. Fact-checking allows journalists not only to confirm what they know but also to communicate what they don't know and why.

• Integrity: fact checkers treat all sources involved in a story with respect, and they remain aware of the context in which they are operating. Fact-checking should empower, not disenfranchise, those who aim to tell the truth.

An editorial fact checker works as an independent member of the editorial team; their job is not to report or edit a story, only to check its accuracy. It's helpful to think of fact-checking as embracing redundancy: we check all facts, not just the ones that look suspicious or require new reporting. A fact checker should be able to defend every word that appears in a piece they have checked. This means they need a documented source for every statement, even the obvious ones.

One of the reasons that fact checkers are stringent on checking even seemingly innocuous details is that there is rarely a clear differentiation between facts that are "minor" and facts that are more important. Letting a few inaccuracies slip into a story may allow for conjecture and, eventually, downright fabrication. Especially in a time when information, misinformation, and disinformation are used as political weapons, publishing an inaccurate statement may mean inadvertently supplying arms. Having an inaccuracy exposed could also lead to people dismissing as false or untrustworthy all of the otherwise accurate work done by the reporter or publication. Checking every fact also helps us to become conscious of our standards and of the complicated nature of truth, and in turn to become better reporters, thinkers, and journalists.

Imagine you are asked to fact-check this sentence: That afternoon in the park, Allison and Viviane took a break from discussing the ethics of fact-checking and quietly sipped their coffees, looking up at the blue sky. There are many facts in this statement, but let's take just one: the blue sky.

Of course, blue is a standard descriptor for the sky, and the sky is often blue—but that doesn't mean you should consider that fact exempt from checking. You need to confirm the sky's blueness in the context of the statement at hand. Was the sky visibly blue at the park, that afternoon, when Allison and Viviane were looking up at it?

First, you need to check that it wasn't raining or cloudy and that the sun hadn't already set. Those facts will depend on the park's location and the date and time in question; with that information, you can refer to the relevant weather records for confirmation.

Second, you need to check that, from where they were sitting, a view of the sky would have been possible—that it wouldn't have been obstructed by trees or a billboard, for example. You could do that by asking people, looking at pictures of the park, or even visiting it yourself if you happen to be nearby.

This is an innocuous example, but it shows the scope of a fact checker's work: you can't travel back in time to see for yourself whether the sky was blue that afternoon, but you can confirm that the description of its blueness is a credible one. There are reasonable boundaries to this work. Your goal is to confirm reporting—to strengthen a story so it stands up to scrutiny—not to needlessly poke holes in a story or to investigate a completely new one. As we will emphasize throughout the guide, a fact checker's work always depends on the fact and story at hand.

Imagine now you are checking this sentence: The sun emits light of every colour, but because blue travels in shorter, smaller waves than other colours do, the sky usually appears blue. It would then be appropriate to refer to scientific sources to confirm the sky's blueness, even though such sources were not necessary for the first example. For the purposes of checking the first example, it doesn't matter that the sky isn't really blue, though it certainly matters for the purposes of checking the second example.

Editorial Roles and Responsibilities

We think of fact-checking as an independent editorial process, which takes place after a story has been reported and edited but before it is published. This conception of fact-checking is motivated by the Two-Layer Principle.

For this reason, in an ideal newsroom structure, the fact checker and reporter should be two different people, operating independently as part of the same editorial team, which also includes the publication's head of research, the story's editor, and the rest of the publication's staff (managing editor, copy editor, proofreader, producer, or others, depending on the type of publication). The fact checker does not report new information, nor do they create or edit a story; their one and only job as fact checker is to check the facts of a piece.

While a fact checker's role should be independent from the rest of the editorial team, that doesn't mean fact-checking itself is an entirely independent endeavour. Rather, it is an inherently collaborative process that can be accomplished only with the earnest support of the entire editorial team. In what follows, we outline the editorial responsibilities of each core member.

Publication

Any publication that makes a claim to publish fact-checked journalism has the responsibility to create an environment conducive to the practice. Ideally, that means having an in-house fact-checking department, led by a head of research, with full-time fact checkers on staff.

A publication should establish policies and working internal documents that outline its fact-checking process and make clear the chain of authority, including to whom the fact checker reports and how they are expected to collaborate with editors and reporters. Ideally, these internal documents should include an ethics policy, a style guide, and a fact-checking guide, with policies in place for updating them. A publication doesn't have to start from scratch: there are many existing guides and other documents—such as this one or those listed in the annotated bibliography—that can serve as standards. What's important is that employees know where to look for guidance.

Once standards are set, it's the publication's responsibility to ensure that they can be upheld. Having fact checkers on staff (as opposed to working with freelancers) is beneficial to the publication, the editorial team, and the fact checkers themselves. A staff fact checker will be familiar with the editorial standards of the publication and its processes, which will ensure the consistency of their work across stories. Staff fact checkers are also more likely to be comfortable communicating with editors about potentially contentious topics and speaking up when they think a correction is necessary. If a publication cannot hire its own checkers, it is still responsible for ensuring that freelance checkers are adequately supported, including by providing training, resources, fair compensation, and legal protection.

Head of Research

The head of research (sometimes also called the research editor or head fact checker) oversees the publication's fact-checking department. They supervise fact checkers (whether staff, freelance, or both), provide training and support, and intervene in disagreements between a reporter or editor and a fact checker.

While it is the publication's responsibility to ensure that fact-checking standards are established, the head of research is usually the one who oversees those standards and makes sure they're put into practice. The head of research also serves as the representative of the fact-checking team in editorial conversations, ensuring that fact checkers' work is considered and supported by other members of the team.

The head of research should be the final decision maker on matters of fact in the publication; in this sense, they work separately from most of the editorial team. By maintaining editorial independence, they preserve an important separation between the editing department and the fact-checking department, thus upholding the Two-Layer Principle.

When in doubt about a practical or ethical matter related to fact-checking, fact checkers turn to the head of research, who decides how closely fact-checking guidelines must be followed. Their decisions should be informed by the three essential values of fact-checking listed above—accuracy, transparency, and integrity—while also taking into account the various practical constraints with which the publication is operating.

Handling Editor

The handling editor collaborates with the reporter to shape the narrative of a story over the course of days, weeks, months, or even years of reporting and editing. In doing so, the handling editor becomes intimately familiar with the piece and its sources. The handling editor is considered the story's advocate and representative within the editorial team: at most publications, they have the final say when it comes to the editorial direction of the piece, which they determine in collaboration with the reporter.

The handling editor is responsible for ensuring that the story they have edited is fact-checking-ready before it is sent off to the fact-checking team. To that end, they must communicate the publication's fact-checking expectations to the reporter clearly (such as by sending them a copy of the publication's Reporter Guidelines, exemplified in Appendix A) at the start of the editorial process, and later ensure that everything the fact checker may need, such as audio recordings and a source list, has been provided in the reporter's research package.

The handling editor is the main point of contact between the reporter and the fact checker. They must be familiar enough with fact-checking requirements and procedures that they can anticipate potential fact-checking challenges, such as cultural sensitivities, and collaborate with the fact checker to determine appropriate approaches and accommodations.

While the handling editor is responsible for deciding how to incorporate the fact checker's comments and corrections into the story once fact-checking is complete, neither the handling editor nor the reporter get to decide which facts a fact checker does or doesn't verify in a story.

Reporter

Ideally, the reporter will be thinking about fact-checking well before editorial work on their story begins. They keep track of their sources during reporting, and once the story has been reported and submitted, they should be able to account for every fact included in it. They are the first person responsible for ensuring that the story they have produced is accurate, that they have contacted everyone required (and documented those interactions), and that the sources they have referenced are inclusive, appropriate, and representative of the subjects and/or communities they claim to be about.

Fact-checking begins when the reporter gives the fact checker a research package that includes all source material collected in their reporting. (See An Outline of the Editorial Process below.) As much as possible, reporters should provide evidence for their opinions rather than relying on their own knowledge of a given subject.

It is the reporter's responsibility to make sure that the people they've included in a story are aware of what the fact-checking process entails and that they are willing and prepared to participate; no interviewed source should be surprised to hear from a fact checker. Investigative features can sometimes take months or years to get to the fact-checking stage, so it's important for the reporter to reiterate the publication's expectations to interviewed sources on more than one occasion. The reporter will also inform the fact checker in advance about any sensitivities or sources requiring special care in their story.

Due to the length of time it can take for a complex or investigative story to enter fact-checking, the reporter's gathered sources can also become out of date or lost. This is just a reality of longform journalism—it doesn't necessarily mean a reporter has fabricated elements of a story. Should the fact checker notice missing sources in the research package, the reporter will fill in the gaps with new sources upon request.

At the beginning of the fact-check, the reporter and fact checker discuss the story and its sourcing. Then, the reporter is available in the event that the fact checker has questions for them. Otherwise, the fact checker's work is independent. This helps maintain the boundary between the reporter and the fact checker, giving each fact two layers of accuracy: the reporting and the verification.

Once the fact-check is complete, making corrections is the responsibility of the handling editor in consultation with the fact checker; the reporter should not rewrite the story after it has entered checking. More information on the reporter's responsibilities can be found in the Reporter Guidelines in Appendix A.

Fact Checker

The fact-checker approach the story as though it is correct and verifiable. They work to make sure every statement and implication in a story is as accurate as possible, even the seemingly small or trivial details. This includes "hard" facts—names, dates, and quotes—as well as the context in which information is presented. It is not the fact-checker's responsibility to edit the narrative or style of the story, or to tell it how they would have told it.

The line between fact-checking and reporting can sometimes be hard to find, especially if the reporter has missed key context that affects the accuracy of the story. But it is important to uphold the Two-Layer Principle: if the fact checker thinks that further reporting is needed before a story can be published, they should let the handling editor know (who will likely then ask the reporter to do more research). The fact checker should not independently conduct original research and include it in the fact-checked copy.

The fact checker's involvement in other editorial aspects of the editorial process risks compromising their ability to accurately assess the story and its sources. To avoid this, the fact checker should defer to the handling editor for the wording or implementation of corrections. When in doubt or in need of mediation, they should turn to the head of research. Insofar as word choice, spelling, and grammatical structure affect the meaning of a sentence, they are concerns of the fact checker (as discussed in Chapter Five), but fact checkers should not copy-edit or proofread.

An Outline of the Editorial Process

Fact-checking is the editorial step between editing and production: it begins after a story has been edited but before it has been copy-edited or laid out on a page. Once the final draft of a story has been approved by the handling editor, the reporter compiles a research package and annotated draft. The story is then handed off from the editorial department to the fact-checking department.

The fact-checking process can be broken down into nine steps:

1. The reporter compiles the research package.

   Once the handling editor decides that the story is ready for publication, they ask the reporter for their research package, which includes:

   • An annotated draft, where each statement in the piece is attributed to a source with which the fact-checker can verify it. The reporter should cite at least one authoritative source for each discrete fact and be transparent about how they conducted their research.

   • Contact information for all interviewed sources (including those on background). The reporter should note any pertinent information about the source, including any sensitivities or necessary accommodations (for example, if they require communication over video chat for the sake of accessibility). They should also include information about any sources they reached out to but did not hear back from.

   • Transcripts and recordings of the reporter's interactions with sources (including via email and other messaging platforms) and any other relevant notes.

   • Documents, web pages, news clippings, scans of book pages, screenshots of social media posts, pictures, and any other documentary sources used in the story. The reporter should include "hard" digital versions (such as PDFs) of any web page, which can be changed or deleted, to avoid losing access to these sources.

2. The handling editor reviews the research package.

   The reporter sends their research package to the handling editor, who reviews it to ensure that everything needed to begin the fact-checking process is included. If something is missing, such as contact information for sources or information about how certain facts were reported, the handling editor returns the package to the reporter and asks them to update it. (This review can also be done by the head of research, depending on the publication's preference.) When the research package is ready, the handling editor notifies the head of research, who then sends it to the fact checker.

3. The fact checker prepares.

   Once they have been assigned a story, the fact checker familiarizes themselves with the narrative, the contents of the research package, and any relevant background reading (encyclopedia entries, scientific literature reviews, etc.). They read the annotated draft in full, making note of anything they would like to discuss with the reporter, handling editor, or head of research before beginning their work. If they spot any red flags, they alert the handling editor as soon as possible. They may also arrange a meeting with the head of research to discuss any complications or concerns.

   Most of the time, a meeting between the reporter and the fact checker is not necessary—all relevant information for fact-checking should be included in the research package. But, sometimes, a fact checker may contact the reporter before starting their work to ask clarifying questions or make sourcing requests. This is usually done in conversation with either the handling editor or the head of research.

4. The facts are checked.

   This process is described in detail in Chapter Three. It involves the fact checker contacting every person named, quoted, cited, or otherwise identifiable in a story (with some exceptions). The fact checker also goes through every primary and secondary source provided by the reporter to make sure that every fact in the story is verified (by one authoritative source or several independent non-authoritative sources, following the Independence Principle), possibly by finding additional or alternative sources.

   As they work, the fact checker documents all sources they use and preserves them in a fact-checking folder. On the checking copy, the fact checker keeps a record of their sourcing and of every correction and clarification they plan to suggest for the story. They should warn the handling editor about any corrections that may require substantial revisions to the piece as early as possible.

5. The fact-checking folder gets a top read.

   When the fact checker is confident that they have addressed every fact in the story—by verifying it, correcting it, or concluding that it cannot be verified—they submit their fact-checking folder and checking copy for a top read (described in more detail in Chapter Three).

   The top reader (likely the head of research or another fact checker) goes through the fact checker's work, identifies any missing sources or facts that have not been verified, and asks questions whenever a sourcing decision or correction seems unclear. They can do this in person, virtually, or over the phone, or they can compile a list of questions to send the fact checker once the top read is done, though some questions may require further conversation.

6. The fact checker creates a checked copy.

   The fact checker conducts any additional research required and updates the fact-checking folder and checking copy based on the top read. Once they are satisfied that everything has been addressed, they create a checked copy of the story to send to the handling editor, which includes only the corrections and comments that have come out of their fact-checking.

7. The handling editor and fact checker meet for input.

   The fact checker and handling editor meet—in person, virtually, or over the phone—to input the corrections and discuss any comments resulting from the fact check. During this meeting, a post-input copy is created to track which corrections are made by the handling editor and which are not. If the fact checker and handling editor can't agree on whether a change needs to be made to the story, they consult with the head of research.

8. The story goes into production.

   After consulting with the reporter on any changes made during fact-checking, the handling editor sends the final version of the story into production. This varies depending on the publication and medium but usually includes copy-editing, typesetting, proofreading, art, and design.

9. The fact checker reviews the story a final time.

   After production, the story—along with its display copy and any photos, illustrations, or infographics—is sent back to the fact checker for a final fact-check read, after which the handling editor and fact checker meet again to input any further corrections. This is the final step involving the fact checker. Once the fact-check read is done, the fact-checking folder is archived for future reference, and the story is eventually published.

   If the reporter or handling editor want to make any changes to the story after this point, they should run them by the fact checker first. If, at any point after step 7, even after the story has been published, the fact checker notices an inaccuracy, they should flag it immediately to the handling editor and head of research.

This delineation of steps helps reduce the number of drafts a fact checker receives and, in turn, the potential for errors to be missed. The Two-Layer Principle can be upheld only if reporting and verification remain distinct; if they become mixed up, it's much easier for information to slip through the cracks and not be verified. An anecdote from the Columbia Journalism Review illustrates this point:

When a Time fact checker working on a profile of Peter F. Drucker, the management consultant, asked what kind of dog he had, Drucker described his senile, half-blind, and lame beagle simply as a "hunting dog," which the checker entered into her notes. The writer of the profile then changed "hunting dog" into "ferocious German Shepherd," leading Drucker to conclude that Time's fact-checking system was one where "the writer does not really understand the facts, and the researcher does not really understand the story."

—Colin Dickey, "The Rise and Fall of Facts," Columbia Journalism Review (2019)

In the next chapter, we explain steps 4 to 9 in further detail.