Editorial Skills Lab: Fact-Checking with Allison Baker

Main Ideas

What Editorial Fact-Checking Is

• Editorial fact-checking is a pre-publication verification process. Its purpose is to catch errors, confirm that reporting is supported, and identify ethical concerns before a story enters the public record.
• This differs from public-facing, post-publication fact-checking—such as the work associated with PolitiFact or Snopes—which often addresses misinformation or disputed public claims after publication. Both approaches value accuracy, but they work at different stages.
• Reporting and verification are distinct steps. Reporting establishes what a story says; fact-checking retraces how those claims were established and asks, “How do we know this is true?”
• Fact-checking is collaborative, not adversarial. Its goal is to strengthen journalism, not to “poke holes” in a reporter’s work.
• Fact-checking cannot make journalism infallible. It aims to make the process more accurate, transparent, inclusive, and accountable.

Why It Matters

Fact-checking supports journalism’s core values of accuracy, transparency, and integrity. It can:

• Build audience trust and strengthen a publication’s credibility.
• Help stories withstand scrutiny and contribute accurately to the historical record.
• Reveal omissions, weak sourcing, or ethical problems—for example, whose voices are treated as authoritative and whose perspectives may be missing.
• Support responsible reporting practices. Baker noted that, in Canada, a responsible-communication defence depends in part on showing that a publisher was diligent in trying to verify allegations before publication. She emphasized that she is not a lawyer and was offering only a general understanding.
• Make legal review more efficient: a well-documented, current fact-checking file can answer questions about sources, outreach, response times, and supporting evidence.

The Reporter’s Responsibilities

The reporter remains the first person responsible for the accuracy and fairness of the draft. The fact-checker provides a second layer of verification.

Reporters should:

• Be able to account for every factual statement and share the evidence behind it.
• Submit a research package, ideally built throughout reporting, that includes:
  • Source contact information.
  • Interview recordings or transcripts.
  • An annotated draft with footnotes linking claims to sources.
  • Notes about source sensitivities, attribution, consent, or preferred contact methods.
• Tell the fact-checker about any background agreements, pseudonyms, anonymity arrangements, or other consent details.
• Keep clear, accessible records. Baker stressed that work that cannot be documented or retrieved may be difficult to defend later, even if it was done carefully.
• Approach reporting with a fact-checking mindset: ask what evidence supports a claim, who is best positioned to verify it, what alternative explanations or viewpoints exist, and what assumptions or biases may be shaping the story.

The Fact-Checker’s Responsibilities

The fact-checker verifies, corroborates, or corrects information already in the story; they are not a substitute reporter, editor, or writer.

Fact-checkers should:

• Check whether the evidence supports the statements in the draft.
• Conduct their own research and build a fact-checking package documenting sources, interviews, and follow-ups.
• Identify gaps, missing perspectives, and more authoritative sources that may not have been considered.
• Alert the reporter and editor if they uncover significant new information. The reporter should report it, it should be added to the draft, and then it should be verified—preserving the distinction between reporting and checking.
• Treat the reporter and editor as competent collaborators, even when errors are found. Apply rigorous scrutiny with compassion.
• Aim to get details right even when an error might seem minor. Small mistakes can undermine confidence in an entire piece.

Consent, Fairness, and Source Contact

• Informed consent is ongoing, not a one-time agreement to go on the record. Sources should understand what publication means and what fact-checking may require.
• Reporters should explain early that a fact-checker may contact sources later—sometimes many months after the interview—and should prepare sources for that interaction, especially when the material is sensitive or traumatic.
• Fact-checkers should explain their role, confirm attribution and consent arrangements, and document their conversations.
• At The Walrus, Baker said fact-checkers contact every named or identifiable source, with exceptions depending on the circumstances. A source may be contacted through an alternative method if needed.
• When speaking with sources, fact-checkers should focus on the accuracy of the existing material, ask follow-up questions, and understand why a detail is disputed and what would be a more accurate framing. They should not simply ask for a yes-or-no endorsement.
• Sources should not be given editorial control. A fair portrayal does not require a subject to like or agree with it, but the story’s takeaway should be fair and accurate.

Editorial Fact-Checking Workflow

Baker described a long-form magazine workflow, noting that procedures vary by publication:

1. The story is pitched, reported, and edited.
2. The reporter annotates the draft and compiles a research package, including sources and contact details.
3. An editor or research lead reviews the package for missing materials or information.
4. A fact-checker is assigned and plans how to verify the story.
5. The fact-checker creates a checking copy and builds a fact-checking package:
   • Preserve gathered sources such as webpages, books, and articles.
   • Record interviews, questions, answers, and follow-ups.
   • Keep versions of the draft and other relevant documents.
6. A top read may review the fact-checking work. At The Walrus, a more senior or experienced checker checks that documentation is complete and accessible, and flags gaps or missed sources. This is a review of the checking work, not a second full fact-check.
7. The fact-checker prepares a check copy containing corrections, clarifications, and notes for the editor—not every piece of supporting research.
8. The editor and fact-checker discuss proposed changes. The editor makes decisions, and the reporter may be involved, especially on major issues. The roles remain distinct to maintain the separation between reporting and verification.
9. The story goes through production and copy editing.
10. The fact-checker reviews the final version to confirm that agreed changes were made, check any newly added material, resolve outstanding follow-ups, and catch edits that could affect accuracy.
11. The story is published, with the fact-checking documentation retained for future reference.

What to Check

Methods differ across organizations. Some may focus mainly on “hard facts,” such as names and dates. Baker described The Walrus’s long-form approach as checking broadly, including:

• Names, dates, and locations.
• Quotes—and the factual claims within quotes.
• Descriptions of people, places, and events.
• Pronouns, identifiers, and descriptors.
• Causal claims: whether the stated cause-and-effect relationship is supported.
• The factual basis of opinions.
• The story’s internal logic.
• Any detail that raises the question, “Should I check this?”

The level of checking must fit an organization’s time and resources, but Baker emphasized that publications should be transparent about the limits of their process.

Guiding Principles from the Truth in Journalism Guide

1. Two-layer principle: Establish a claim through reporting, then verify it as a separate step.
2. Internal/external fact distinction:
   • An internal fact concerns a person’s own experience, identity, or knowledge; that person may be the most authoritative source for it.
   • An external fact concerns another person, event, place, or circumstance and may require additional sources, even if the original source witnessed it.
3. Authority principle: A source’s authority depends on the particular fact. For example, an agency may be authoritative about its own regulation but not necessarily about the regulation’s effects on people.
4. Independence principle: Seek one authoritative source or multiple independent sources. Several accounts that all repeat the same original report do not provide independent corroboration.
5. Personal principle: Contact people named or identifiable in a story when appropriate, so they are not surprised by its contents. The nature of the fact determines whether a direct response is necessary.
6. Collaboration principle: Make verification accessible and responsive to people’s needs where reasonable—for example, in timing, communication method, or trauma-informed handling—without giving them control over whether relevant facts are checked.
7. Knowledge principle: Match the verification method to the kind of knowledge involved. An oral history, for instance, should be checked through appropriate knowledgeable sources rather than automatically requiring documentary evidence.
8. Power principle: Journalists and fact-checkers exercise power when deciding what is treated as true. They should work carefully and compassionately, and be transparent about limitations.

Additional Guidance

• Arrange facts without manipulating the reader’s understanding.
• Treat companies like people when they face allegations: seek their response.
• Personal anecdotes can support a person’s account of their own experience, but claims involving other people require corroboration.
• Aim for a standard higher than “virtually certain”: verify claims rather than relying on what seems obvious.
• Baker does not personally use LLMs as fact-checking tools. She cautioned that they can hallucinate or create false confidence; any information they provide still requires independent verification.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Daria Maestro — Editorial and programming fellow at the National Media Awards Foundation; introduced the session, monitored questions, and closed the event.
• Allison Baker — Presenter; co-creator of the Truth in Journalism Project, co-author of its fact-checking guide, and head of research at The Walrus.
• Vivian Fairbank — Baker’s co-author and collaborator on the Truth in Journalism Fact-Checking Guide; referenced in the presentation and examples.
• Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach — Authors of The Elements of Journalism, cited for describing journalism as a discipline of verification.
• The Truth in Journalism Fact-Checking Guide and Truth in Journalism Project — The primary resources informing Baker’s presentation.
• PolitiFact and Snopes — Cited as examples of public-facing, post-publication fact-checking.
• The Walrus — Referenced as the publication whose fact-checking workflow Baker described.