The common opinion is that editors simply sit at a computer and wait for copy to come their way so they can undo a writer’s mistakes. That is only half-correct. Editors do sit there, but they do so much more than rewrite stories and check for grammar issues. A huge chunk of time is dedicated to fact-checking all information the writer has presented. Doing this takes time and effort.

Any editor worth his or her salt knows a good piece of copy—a news article or fiction—needs someone to investigate moments of supposed-facts the writer has used. The key to making this task easy is already knowing what to look for and why, how to find it, and what steps you can take if you still need more help. Continue reading (and see my service page if you need your copy or story edited) to learn some easy tricks to make fact-checking more simple.

Fact-checking a writer’s work can forge a rapport with the editor and the writer. It can also sour the same relationship. Fact-checking, as a consequence, defines the integrity of those involved. For example, if an editor fails to catch an error, it is not the writer who suffers the blame. The editor should have been on top of his or her game and did better fact-checking.

Taking responsibility for a copy error is a situation to which parties reluctantly engage.

The writer does not go unscathed either. A writer’s reputation is always on the chopping block. If writers create false facts or only use half-truths to tell a story, their editors and publishers they work with may cease future contracts. If the writer does not care to incorporate facts in their copy, it will trickle down and damage the prestige of the editors.

This article is extremely important for all editors and writers alike. Take notes!

Google it

In the 21st Century, this should be everyone’s first mission. Google is a godsend for us editors. It can help us within seconds to find directions, people, and most importantly, facts. As an editor myself, when I hit up Google I first go the “news” and “tools” sections atop the search rankings to narrow my search. If there is any other articles or information on the subject from other writers, this is where it will be.

In the era of rampant fake news, Google has become involved in eradicating false claims from those looking to spread gossip and create trouble.

Usually, a quick search, if credible, will likely show in the “news” section along the menu bar atop your Google search page. Use it. I do. Thoroughly. Chances are highly probable that you are not the only editor are planet Earth that will be investigating that specific claim. More than likely, it has already been fact-checked many times before you even arrived. This is good. Very good. It just made your job much easier. And all it took was a few seconds to check Google.

If you wanted to narrow it down even further (because sometimes searching keywords will bring up multiple sites that might not be relevant to you) then at the same menu bar, choose the “tools” option at the far right of the menu. It will allow you to search even clearer by duration, time video, quality, and source. This is probably the easiest option you can use to narrow down information on the Internet.

Just Ask!

This one might seem like a no brainer, but you would be surprised how many people hesitate to confront others about their sources.

I believe this hesitation comes from a lack of desire to truly produce a well-made project. And it comes from the inability to inquire in a direct manner with another person with whom you seek information. You would be amazed at how many people will simply tell you their thoughts (and sources) when asked. It is as if after being asked, a door has opened for that person and they feel they now have free reign to speak their minds.

People, in general, are terrible at keeping secrets. Unless a person is already primed to withhold information from you, they likely will let something slip, if not everything. Ask them what they know. Ask them how they know. And when you ask them who is involved, take detailed notes. The who, in journalism, is damn near the most paramount source you can get. The “who” unlocks all other doors and will probably lead you through more unexpected doors for even better information. Asking for information really is the best place to start if you are interviewing someone or in the presence of a potential lead that might take you to higher investigations.

Another method you can use is to tell an interviewee that you are fact-checking them. Tell them straight up to their faces that you will be looking into what they are telling you. This will put the fear of God in them. Deep down, people expect journalists to check info they have been given, but it is a mere afterthought. However, if you inform them— in the beginning—that you will be fact-checking them, they will be prone not to lie (or express a half-truth) for fear of realizing they are a liar later on.

Also, listen to the information they give that contradicts their argument. This requires more work on the journalist’s part beforehand, but it is one that works well. Many times people will align the answers they give to fit their own narratives rather than provide the facts of the case. By having statements they previously made about the topic (from surfing YouTube or access to files on their own sites, etc.) you can catch them in a lie.

  • *NOTE* If you proceed down this route, be careful. By calling out lies during an interview could result in a domino effect that might lead to disaster. The interviewee might leave. They might realize you are trapping them and lie even further. My suggestion is that you use the information you have on them discreetly. When they tell you contradicting statements, do not make it obvious that you are calling them out—it will destroy the interview. Politely make a remark that they have given different information in the past and move on to the next question.

Fact-checking writers through examining their evidence is a helpful method, as well. When interacting with writers, it will likely be done through email, cloud services, and attachments. If you come across a quote or fact that seems suspect, question the writer. Ask them which website they got the information from or ask them for a copy of the audio transcripts. I guarantee if you confront the writer about where he or she got the information from, you will see them backtrack their claims quickly (if the claims are, in fact, false).

Fact-Checking Fake News

These days, unfortunately, “fake news” is a household term.

I wish it wasn’t, but it is.

You can thank the majority of media companies, and especially, social media provocateurs for the term and the hysteria it causes.

Fake news, however, cannot exist without uniformed and gullible people to believe it. If people would simply take a few seconds to investigate claims they read or saw or heard in the media, then the problem would eradicate itself. It seems as if the public enjoys the hysteria caused by fake news. Fake news causes drama. And people like drama, as long as it doesn’t happen to them. Rather than reporting an objective perspective about the news, the vast majority of big media corporations has morphed into editorial and subjective-like commentary that blurts out opinion to the viewers.

This is dangerous.

So, assuming you are a serious editor or writer who doesn’t wish to cause drama in other people’s lives, fact-checking news suspected as “fake” is an absolute requirement in the 21st century. Here are some ways you can check:

  • “.co”
    • If you see a URL link that ends with .co, then don’t bother. It is a site producing fake information.
  • Suspect quotes and photos
    • This might be a tad more difficult to decipher, especially the quotes. Fake photos, unless designed by a professional, appear grainy and clearly photoshopped. You will know it when you see it. Photos like these should raise suspicion.
    • Quotes are tougher because you can never truly know what was said unless you were there. To analyze this, you have to examine who was saying what and with whom. If the parties involved were already familiar with one another the answers to the questions might sound pre-programmed. Almost too confident.
      • I have interviewed many people and they almost always are super nervous. They know that speaking to someone in the media can be detrimental to their career. They have a difficult time settling their nerves, so their answer is shorter than you expected or just the opposite, they can’t stop rambling.
      • Fake quotes tend to air of a perfected readiness to them that sound unlike how a person might regularly say them.
  • Confirmation Bias
    • You will see this in nearly all media sites. Objectivity is a perspective as rare as a unicorn. This is to be expected—it sells. However, more credible outlets will have other opposing opinions, as well.
    • A clear sign of bias is when an entire site plays to one side. If every article, interview, and opinion is without debate from an opposer, beware!
    • Do they cite their sources? Any journalist worth his or her salt will proudly display the sources from where they got their information. Good journalists are only too happy to have been helped by others in the field. Source-sharing implies good faith and trust among the journalist community.
  • Contact Page
    • Check for made-up names that are meant to be funny.
    • Does the page or article have a recent picture of the supposed author?
  • Read the Whole Story
    • Sometimes the headline will appear credible enough for a reader not to continue with the article. They will take a properly written headline at face value and run with it. This happens very often. Upon reading the rest of the story, you might find that it was written with sarcasm or satire.

Be Skeptical

Any reporter, editor, and anyone involved in media production should treat news stories with as much skepticism as humanly possible.

Why? Because people like to stir the pot. They enjoy partaking in chaos. They release their own aggression by gossiping and by reputation destruction.

A journalist should automatically assume that whatever story they are learning about is untrue or at the very least, contains slivers of untruth within its entirety. In other words, you have lots of work to perform if you want the best, most informative story you can achieve.

Here’s how to stay skeptic:

  • Destroy your own story
    • This seems counterproductive, but it will help you. By playing the devil’s advocate and investigating your story from a different perspective to discredit your information, it might (hopefully) strengthen your story. This is good because it will teach you how to play both sides.
  • Victims Lie
    • The point is to find irrefutable evidence. That means you might have to ask difficult questions to the sufferers of crimes. Not all victims of crimes are lying and not all victims are telling the truth. If you go into the investigation with that attitude, you will produce a better story.
  • Verify Experts and Sources
    • I already wrote on this before, but it needs more explaining in this section. Remember: skepticism is important. That’s why you should not be satisfied with only one source or the testimony from one expert. Sources are faulty. Experts may have biases of their own. You never know.

Journalists cannot trust anyone…not until you seek out and discover the truth and the facts on your own. Even people in your own circle might have agendas that conflict with your goals. Fact-checking is not an easy journey. If you allow yourself to be manipulated your guard will falter, you will produce unreliable reports, and your credibility as an editor and writer will be damaged.

Below are some fantastic sites that will help your fact-checking strategies:

If you liked what you have learned here and want to read more about editing, click here to learn some easy tips to make your editing easier. And if you need any book editing done by a professional, you can check out my services page here.

And if you want to amplify the suspense in your short story or your novel, you can purchase my eBook here. 

Keep writing!

~M