How do you fact check your facts?

1. Define the claim and split it into checkable parts

Begin by isolating the precise factual assertions embedded in a statement and break complex claims into discrete, verifiable elements—this is a standard step used by established fact-checkers like PolitiFact to avoid conflating context, opinion, and measurable facts ^[4].

2. Read laterally and look for previous work

Before deep diving, read laterally: consult what other credible outlets, libraries, and dedicated fact-checking sites have said about the claim—reading the network of coverage often reveals provenance, corrections, or prior debunking and saves redundant effort ^{[6] [7]}.

3. Go “upstream” to original sources

Trace any statistic, quotation, or policy claim back to its original document—reports, government releases, primary datasets, transcripts—because secondary summaries can misstate context or numbers; professional verification privileges original sources whenever possible ^{[6] [4]}.

4. Vet expertise and source credibility

Check credentials and potential motivations: who authored the source, are they specialized in the topic, do they have a track record, and might there be political or commercial agendas that shape their claims—news literacy guides emphasize assessing author expertise and source incentives as central to judging trustworthiness ^{[8] [9]}.

5. Use technical tools and provenance checks for media

For images, video, and documents, apply technical verification—reverse-image search, metadata inspection, and provenance analysis—to detect manipulation or misattribution; verification playbooks and library guides highlight these methods as core to preventing visual misinformation ^{[9] [10]}.

6. Corroborate with multiple independent sources and subject experts

Confirm facts with at least two independent lines of evidence when possible, and seek subject-matter experts for interpretation; newsroom checklists and academic handbooks stress corroboration and expert review to reduce errors and contextualize complex or technical claims ^{[3] [11]}.

7. Be transparent about uncertainty and correct quickly

When facts cannot be fully verified, label them as unproven or explain limits; when errors are found, issue prompt corrections with clear sourcing—these are practices advocated across journalism guides and fact-checking manuals to maintain credibility and accountability ^{[12] [13]}.

8. Watch cognitive traps and platform dynamics

Recognize confirmation bias and emotional triggers that make false claims spread; researchers show that timing, source credibility, and framing affect how easily misinformation can be corrected, so fact-checks are more effective when they come early and from credible, even unexpected, sources ^{[1] [14]}.

9. Combine human judgment with scalable methods cautiously

Human fact-checkers apply judgment, context, and sourcing rigor, but automated techniques are growing to scale detection—studies recommend blending manual review with algorithmic tools while being mindful of transparency and disagreement among checkers ^[15].

10. Institutionalize the process and archive evidence

Make fact-checking a repeatable workflow: annotate drafts, save PDFs/screenshots of sources, keep interview transcripts, and have an independent checker review line-by-line—these editorial controls are described in newsroom handbooks and reduce later disputes over what was known and when ^{[3] [12]}.

This method is not a guarantee of perfection, but it is a tested sequence—define claims, read laterally, go upstream, corroborate, use technical verification, consult experts, be transparent about limits, and document everything—that newsrooms and fact-checking networks use to give readers confidence and to correct errors when they occur ^{[4] [2] [3]}.