Fact Checking Policy

Due to increasing misinformation on the Internet,I t’s our responsibility to make sure we fact check all the content. As a matter fact, it’s our top priority when we are sharing a news about sensitive topic.

Due accuracy in all Our content

The most vital feature of every journalistic platform is the audience’s trust. Accurate, fair, and balanced reporting is the only way to gain and maintain trust. It is critical that We continue to work hard to ensure that all of Our content is as accurate as possible. ‘Due accuracy,’ in our opinion, means accuracy that is not just of the required quality but also satisfactory in essence. In the quest of proper accuracy, We evaluate factors such as the subject and type of the information being presented, the audience’s expectations, and so on. In every news report, we attempt to provide the most accurate account, which is backed up by the news’s direct stakeholders. We look into assertions with scepticism, examine assumptions, and put conventional wisdom to the test. We understand that there will always be areas of doubt, despite our best attempts to resolve them. The level of rigour necessary to fact-check information on soft and hard stories, however, differs. The sources needed for a positive narrative about an NGO’s work, for example, would differ from those needed for an investigative story.

To assure the accuracy of Our material, we follow the guidelines outlined below:

We make certain that any information we broadcast comes from a reputable source and is supported by concrete and verifiable facts. We are required to attribute stories to the platform from which they were sourced if we do not have direct sources.

We make every effort to verify any claims, allegations, or information ascribed to governmental authorities or from someone we suspect has a motive other than just recounting the facts of the occurrence. As a result, we qualify and highlight any information, such as claims or allegations, that we are unable to verify.

We stand behind the information we provide and believe it to be correct. If the contrary is verified, we modify the news item/information as soon as practically practicable and guarantee that We properly tell Our readers about the changes.

We recognise how important it is for our audiences to have faith in us. As a result, it is Our goal to not intentionally misinform anyone, to not edit any material, and to not publish any made-up information as genuine stuff. Furthermore, when severe factual errors are discovered, we publicly accept them and guarantee that they are corrected in a clear and acceptable manner as soon as feasible.

We make sure that the public has a fair chance to submit any mistakes or omissions on Our Website by including a “Suggest A Correction” section at the end of every of Our reportage that is presented and published on Our Website.

Our journalists’ primary role is to report, write, and fact-check news/information/stories. In truth, Our pieces are scrutinised on numerous levels, including a sophisticated fact-checking internal procedure in which each piece is subjected to thorough due diligence before being examined by one or more of Our editors. It is important to note that the seniority of editors who assess stories before they are published on the Website varies and is dependent on a variety of circumstances, including the complexity and sensitivity of the problem, as well as the pressure of time.

In the event of a complaint, we make every effort to contact all parties involved. Then, in order to reach the most accurate result, we independently verify the information in question and the one being provided.

Information for our articles is gathered from a variety of sources.

We gather data in the most accurate manner possible by following the following guidelines:

At least two sources should be used to verify each piece of information.

When dealing with a single source, the source’s credibility is established by corroboration of what the individual is saying.

Instead than depending exclusively on a human source, look for documentary evidence whenever possible.

In the event of a survey, it is Our responsibility to explain how the information was gathered and how the results were interpreted. If there is a danger that Our data will not lead to correct information, we will notify the public as soon as feasible.

The goal and intention is to obtain accurate information in the first instance, rather than making it public first and then addressing any doubts that may arise.

Always make an effort to interview and record the stakeholders of the information/news. Explain why, depending on the circumstances, an anonymous source is not named, and devise a method for providing readers with as much information as possible about such sources so that they can assess the sources’ reliability.

Share source information with others. Our editors so that they (editors and reporters) can determine whether the information in question is appropriate for use and how it should be used. Anonymous quotations must reflect the discussion between the reporter and the editor.

Have brief discussions with sources about how to use the material they’ve provided, especially if they don’t have much experience dealing with the media. Because such terminology can have varied meanings for different persons, clarify a source’s expectations of keeping material “off the record,” “on background,” and/or other statuses.

Give people the opportunity to reply to stories that might paint them in a poor light, and explain to readers what we do to get a response when sources don’t.

Seek out sources who don’t have much access to a wide range of public platforms, as well as those who are important and powerful.

In order to prevent presenting the audience with any incorrect information, a senior resource or the person in charge of the newsroom at Web News Observer can always be consulted if one is in a quandary or unable to make a decision on their own.

User-Generated Content (UGC) Content

User-generated content comes with its own set of problems. We do not presume that the material supplied with Us is authentic, and we take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of such content, depending on how We intend to utilise it. We are aware of how to use information provided by a lobbyist or someone with a vested interest in the story rather than a disinterested onlooker. We make certain that user-generated content is labelled as such. Furthermore, we adhere to the following guidelines:

On the internet, sources of information that appear to be reliable are not necessarily correct. It may be essential to verify who runs the website and/or validate that the material relevant to them is real with an individual or organisation.

It’s important to discern between fact and rumour. This is especially true, but not exclusively, for material available on social media, where distortions may be intentional or unintentional, but where an error or rumour can spread like wildfire among an audience around the world in minutes, while corrections are much more difficult to achieve the same momentum.

When content from a social media site or another internet source is utilised to corroborate a fact, extra investigation may be required. All material that was not gathered by Us is qualified and identified.

 

Exit mobile version