Fact-check a viral story in five steps

The fastest-rising topics are often the least verified. An image taken out of context, an old video reshared as if it were from today, a fake account using a well-known outlet’s name: the mechanisms repeat from one story to the next. Here is the routine we apply before writing a single line, and that anyone can follow in a few minutes.

1. Go back to the primary source. Who published first? A witness, an institution, an identifiable outlet with an address and a newsroom? If the “source” is a screenshot of a message whose original nobody can find, the information must be treated as unestablished. A screenshot takes thirty seconds to fabricate; a link to the original post does not.

2. Date and locate. A reverse image search, offered by several engines, often reveals that a photo presented as taken “today” has been circulating for years. For a video, visible details are often enough: signs and the language on them, licence plates, weather, vegetation, clothing, shadows. A summer scene cannot illustrate an event in February.

3. Cross-check with two independent sources. Two articles repeating the same social media post are not two sources: they are one, duplicated. Look for confirmation from genuinely distinct channels — an official authority, a news agency, a reporter on the ground, an original document, a public register.

4. Be wary of round numbers and superlatives. “Millions”, “unprecedented”, “the biggest in history”: these phrases almost always signal a missing source. A credible figure has an origin you can name and cite: a report, a statement, a database, an official toll, with a date. If nobody knows where the number came from, do not repeat it.

5. Accept that waiting is part of the job. In the first hours of an event, tolls change, names circulate before confirmation and blame is misassigned. It is better to publish later and right than early and wrong. When we do publish under time pressure, we explicitly separate what is confirmed from what remains to be established.

Two traps deserve particular attention today. First, computer-generated images and voices: the classic giveaways — hands, background text, lighting inconsistencies — are becoming rare, so visual inspection alone is no longer enough; provenance now matters more than appearance. Second, loose translations, which turn a cautious statement into a categorical claim.

These five steps take a few minutes and prevent the vast majority of errors. They form the basis of our editorial charter: every article cites its sources, every update is timestamped, and any correction is flagged at the foot of the article rather than quietly fixed.