Monday, June 15, 2026 The Morning Watch is out — read today’s → Search Subscribe
Briefings

Fact-Checking Policy

Daily Watch Reports' full fact-checking workflow: reporter verification, editor review, primary vs secondary sources, escalation for serious claims, and pre-publication checklist.

Fact-Checking Policy

Accuracy is not a finishing step at Daily Watch Reports — it is built into the process from the first reported note to the moment of publication. This page describes the specific verification workflow every story goes through, the distinction between primary and secondary sources, the escalation path for contested claims, and the pre-publication checklist editors complete before a story goes live.

The Verification Workflow

Fact-checking at Daily Watch Reports happens in two distinct passes: the reporter’s own verification during the reporting process, and the editor’s independent review before publication.

Reporter Verification

As a story is reported, the journalist is responsible for the following at minimum:

  • Every named individual in the story has been contacted for comment or has been given a reasonable opportunity to respond. The response — or the absence of one — is documented.
  • Every factual claim is traceable to a source the reporter has directly consulted: an interview, a document, an official record, or first-hand observation. Claims that are commonly repeated but unverified are not treated as established facts.
  • Numbers, statistics, and data points are traced to their original source (not a press release or secondary article that cites that source). The reporter has read the original and verified that the figure is accurately represented.
  • Dates, titles, and proper names are confirmed against authoritative sources — official websites, public records, direct contact — not assumed from prior coverage.
  • Quotes are checked against recordings or contemporaneous notes. No quote is altered beyond punctuation and minor grammatical cleanup that does not change meaning.

Editor Review

Every story is reviewed by a second editorial staff member before publication. The editor’s review is not limited to prose and structure — it is an independent pass on factual content. Editors are expected to:

  • Question any claim that lacks visible attribution in the copy and confirm with the reporter that it is sourced.
  • Verify that the headline, subheadings, and any promotional copy accurately reflect the story’s actual findings.
  • Flag any claim that seems outsized or surprising and require the reporter to walk through the sourcing before approving publication.
  • Confirm that named subjects of criticism have been given a fair opportunity to respond and that their response, or its absence, is reflected.

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

A primary source is the origin of a fact: the court filing itself, the study as published, the official statement, the interview with the person who was present. A secondary source is something that reports on a primary source — a news article, a press release, a blog post, a Wikipedia entry.

Daily Watch Reports treats secondary sources as pointers to primary sources, not as sources themselves. We do not cite a news article to establish a fact — we go to what that news article cited. If we cannot locate the primary source, we either do not publish the claim or we attribute it explicitly to the secondary source and note that we were unable to independently verify it.

There is one limited exception: when a secondary source is itself the subject of coverage — for instance, when we are reporting on what another outlet published — the secondary source is the fact, and we cite it directly.

Escalation for Contested or High-Stakes Claims

Some claims require a higher level of scrutiny before publication. These include: allegations of criminal conduct, claims that a named individual acted improperly or unethically, findings that contradict official accounts or widely held understanding, and any story that could cause significant reputational or legal harm to a named subject.

For these stories, the verification process is escalated to include the Editor-in-Chief before publication. The editor-in-chief reviews the sourcing, confirms that the subject has had an adequate opportunity to respond, and makes the final publication decision. When there is genuine uncertainty about whether sourcing meets the bar for a serious claim, we do not publish until it does — or we reframe the story around what we can actually establish.

Pre-Publication Checklist

Before any story is published, the editor completing the final review confirms the following:

  1. Every named person has been contacted and their response is in the story.
  2. Every number and statistic is sourced to a primary document or original dataset.
  3. Dates, titles, and proper names are confirmed accurate.
  4. Quotes are verbatim or are clearly paraphrased with attribution.
  5. The headline accurately represents the story’s findings.
  6. Any AI tool use that was material to the story is disclosed.
  7. No claim relies solely on a single anonymous source.
  8. For opinion pieces: the piece is clearly labeled as opinion, and any factual claims within it are verified.

A story that cannot clear this checklist does not publish until it can.

After Publication

Fact-checking does not end when a story is published. Readers, sources, and subjects who identify errors are taken seriously. When an error is confirmed, it is corrected promptly and visibly. See our Corrections policy for how that process works.