In an era when misinformation, hoaxes and even outright fabrication are being weaponized in the political arena, letting an inaccuracy slip through can damage the credibility of a reporter or publication, leading to distrust and indifference. For this reason, fact checkers are stringent when it comes to checking even seemingly innocuous details.
While the exact boundaries between fact-checking and reporting can vary from one organization to another, there are reasonable boundaries that must be respected. For example, a journalist shouldn’t independently conduct research and then include that information in the story they are fact-checking (that would be reporting). Instead, they should consult with the fact-checker to clarify questions or make sourcing requests. This should happen in conversation with either the handling editor or the head of research.
After the fact checker completes their work, they must review it with a top reader (likely the head of research) to identify any gaps or missing evidence. They can do this in person, over the phone or via email. The top reader may also question sourcing decisions or offer suggestions on improving the readability of the article.
This step is a vital part of the process, as it helps ensure that the fact-checker has followed the Two-Layer Principle and did not simply affirm the truth of a suspicious claim. For instance, if the sentence, “That afternoon in the park, Allison and Viviane quietly sipped their coffees and looked up at the sky, which was visibly blue” is accurate, the fact-checker should not verify that the sky was actually blue in that context.