Breaking news rewards speed, but a fast post is not the same as a verified report. A real photograph can be old, a genuine quote can be taken out of context and several accounts can repeat the same unconfirmed claim. Use this workflow to slow down the specific parts that need checking before you share or publish.
Freeze the exact claim and the time you saw it
Write the claim in one sentence. What exactly is being asserted, about whom, where and when? Separate the event itself from the explanation attached to it. “A video shows smoke near the station” is different from “the station was hit in an attack.”
Record the post URL, account name, timestamp and any visible edits or context. Breaking stories change quickly; note when you checked, not just what the post currently says. Keep a copy of the original link for later comparison.
Trace the claim back to its origin
Find the earliest available source: an on-the-record witness, the original person who filmed the scene, a public document, a direct statement or a reporter who was present. A screenshot, repost or account quoting another account is not a new source.
Check who is speaking and how they could know. A government agency can confirm what it has announced; that statement alone may not independently establish every detail of the event. Attribute disputed claims to the person or organization making them and explain what is known about the source.
If you cannot identify the origin, say so. Do not turn an anonymous post into “reports say” simply because it has been repeated by many accounts.
Sources: Verification at AP · Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections · Reuters Journalistic Standards
Look for independent corroboration
For a consequential claim, seek more than one reliable line of evidence. Independent confirmation might come from separate eyewitnesses, original documents, on-the-record sources with different access or visual material recorded from another position.
Check whether the sources are genuinely independent. Ten posts copying one video or quoting the same unnamed account are still one underlying claim. Compare what each source actually observed rather than counting links.
When the evidence is incomplete, narrow the wording to what it supports. You can report that an agency made an announcement, that a witness described an event or that a video is circulating without presenting the underlying allegation as established fact.
Sources: Verification at AP · Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections · Reuters Journalistic Standards
Verify photos and videos as evidence, not decoration
Start with the original file or earliest upload you can find. Run a reverse-image search on the full image and, for video, on distinctive keyframes. This can reveal an older photograph or clip being recirculated with a new caption.
Check the scene against independent clues: landmarks, road signs, language, building details, weather, vegetation, shadows and the direction of light. Compare the scene with maps, satellite images, archived imagery or street-level views where useful. Look for other eyewitness images from a different angle.
If possible, contact the original filmer. Ask when and where the material was recorded, what happened immediately before and after the clip, and whether the person can share the original file. Metadata may help establish a device, time or location when it is present, but social platforms often strip metadata; its absence does not prove that a file is false.
Look for signs of editing, missing context or generated content, but do not rely on one visual clue or an AI detector. Reuters describes using several detection tools alongside source interviews, metadata and comparisons with weather, satellite and street-view imagery; the tools themselves are not foolproof.
Sources: Verification at AP · Bellingcat’s Online Investigation Toolkit
Check the date, location and surrounding context
A genuine image may still be misleading if it is from a different year, city or event. Compare the claimed date with weather, daylight, seasonal details, public schedules and the timeline reported by other sources. Convert time zones carefully, especially when posts and official statements come from different countries.
Read the material before and after a quote. Check whether a video has been cut, whether a document is a draft or final version and whether a number refers to an estimate, a confirmed total or an earlier update. Do not treat a cropped screenshot as the complete record.
Sources: Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections · Reuters Journalistic Standards · Bellingcat’s Online Investigation Toolkit
Separate confirmed facts, attributed claims and unknowns
Use language that shows the evidence level. “The agency said” identifies an attributed statement. “The document shows” points to a record. “The video appears to show” signals that visual interpretation is still being assessed. “We have not independently verified” tells readers what remains unresolved.
Be careful with casualty counts, identities, motives, legal allegations and claims of responsibility. These details can change as more information becomes available. Avoid false precision and do not fill gaps with assumptions. If AI helped summarize material, independently check every factual claim and source before publication.
Sources: Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections · Reuters Journalistic Standards
Remember that verification and permission are different
Authenticating a photo or video does not automatically give you the right to republish it. Confirm who created the material, who owns it and whether you have permission to use it. Attribute the original source clearly. Do not remove a watermark or imply that third-party material is your own.
Authenticating a photograph or video and having permission to republish it are separate questions. Evidence can help establish what happened without granting reuse rights; anyone planning to reuse the material still needs to check who owns it and what permission applies.
Sources: Verification at AP · Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections
Correct the record when the evidence changes
Keep a record of what was published, when it was checked and which sources supported it. If a material fact changes, update the story promptly and explain what changed. If an earlier statement was wrong, label the correction clearly rather than quietly rewriting the page.
Reuters and AP both emphasize transparent corrections and accurate attribution. A visible correction is part of trustworthy reporting, not an embarrassment to hide.
Sources: Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections · Reuters Journalistic Standards
A quick pre-publication checklist
1. Can I state the exact claim and the time it was made? 2. Have I found the original source rather than a chain of reposts? 3. Do I know how the source could know this information? 4. Is there independent corroboration, not just repetition? 5. Have I checked the date, location and context of every image or clip? 6. Have I contacted the original creator where possible and checked permission? 7. Does the wording distinguish confirmed facts from allegations and unknowns? 8. Can I show readers where the information came from? 9. Do I have a plan to update or correct the report if new evidence appears?
If any answer is no, pause or narrow the claim. The responsible choice may be to wait, publish only the verified portion or explain that the available evidence is not yet enough.
Sources: Verification at AP · Telling the Story: Attribution and corrections · Reuters Journalistic Standards · Bellingcat’s Online Investigation Toolkit
