Fact-Checking Policy

If you have any questions or concerns regarding our fact-checking policy, please feel free to contact us at https://digitalnewsexpert.com/w@stacknexo.com or via email at digitalnewsexpert.@stacknexo.com.

Due accuracy in all Our content

The confidence of a readership in a news source is crucial for any media outlet. Accurate, fair, and balanced reporting is the only foundation for building and maintaining trust. It is critical that we continue to strive for maximum accuracy in all of our information. ‘Due correctness,’ according to our definition, means that the precision is not only up to snuff but also meets our needs. Additionally, we take into account things like the audience’s interests and prior knowledge about the topic matter and nature of the material being presented. Our goal is to provide the most accurate narrative possible that is supported by the people who are directly affected by the news. Doubts are questioned and conventional thinking is challenged in our investigations. We understand that despite our best efforts, there will always be regions of ambiguity. However, fact-checking requirements for soft and hard stories are different. An investigative story, for example, would require a different set of sources than a positive story about an NGO.

To ensure that our material is accurate, we follow the guidelines outlined below:

We make it a point to only broadcast information that is backed up by solid facts. If we don’t have access to the original source, we must credit the platform where the story originally appeared.

We make every effort to verify any claims, allegations, or information ascribed to official authorities or from someone who we believe has a reason for doing more than simply recounting the facts of an incident. Because of this, we qualify and point out material, including claims and allegations, that we cannot verify.

We believe in the accuracy of the information we provide. If it is established that the news item/information is incorrect, We make the necessary modifications as quickly as feasible and guarantee that Our readers are informed of the changes.

We know that our audience’s faith in us is critical. As a result, Our goal is to ensure that no one is intentionally misinformed and that no material is tampered with or presented as factual content. Furthermore, when severe factual errors are discovered, we acknowledge them openly and work to have them corrected as quickly as possible in a way that is both clear and acceptable.

The “Suggest a Correction” section offered at the end of all Our reports on Our Website ensures that the public has a fair opportunity to submit any mistakes or errors.

Reporting, writing, and fact-checking news, information, and stories are at the top of the priority list for our journalists. In reality, every one of our stories is thoroughly fact-checked before publication, and the results are then reviewed by at least one of our editors before publication. It’s important to note that the level of experience and seniority of the editors who conduct pre-publication reviews of stories varies and is dependent on a variety of circumstances, such as the difficulty and sensitivity of the subject matter and the time constraints.

In the event of a complaint, we make every effort to contact all parties involved. To ensure the most accurate outcome, we do our own independent verification of the information in question and the one that is being provided.

Sourcing Information for Our content

Following the instructions provided, we gather data from the most reliable sources possible:

Every item of information should be checked against at least two other sources.

Credibility of a single source is ensured by corroboration with the person’s statements themselves.

Rather than depending entirely on a human source, seek out any and all documentation that may be available.

When conducting a survey, it is our responsibility to explain how the data was gathered and how it was analysed. If there’s a danger that our data won’t produce accurate results, we’ll let people know as soon as feasible.

Rather than releasing information first and then addressing any doubts, the goal is to have reliable information at the outset.

Always make an attempt to meet and speak with the people who have a stake in the information/news that you are reporting on. It is important to explain why an anonymous source is utilised in certain situations and work out a strategy to give readers as much information about the source as possible so that they can judge its credibility.

Inform others about the sources you’ve used. Editors and writers alike can use this tool to determine if and how a piece of information is appropriate for publication. The reporter and editor’s dialogue should be portrayed in anonymous quotes.

Talk to sources about how to use the material they provide, especially if they have little or no experience working with the media. The expectations of a source to keep material “off the record” or “on background” or other statuses should be clarified because these terms might have varied connotations for different people.

Ensure that anyone who may be negatively impacted by our reporting have the opportunity to reply, and inform readers of the steps we take to get a response from sources who fail to do so.

In addition to those sources who have a lot of clout, look for those that don’t have access to a lot of media attention.

An expert in digitalnewsexpert journalism department can always be called upon if one is in doubt or is unable to make an informed decision on their own, so that no inaccurate piece of information is shared with viewers.

User-Generated Content

Challenges are inherent with user-generated content. Since we can’t know for sure if what has been communicated with us is accurate, it’s important for us to complete our due diligence before acting on it. If you’re a member of a lobby group or someone who has a stake in the story, it’s important to know how to use the material they provide. We make it a point to properly identify user-generated content as such. In addition, we adhere to the following rules:

Internet information sources that appear trustworthy may not necessarily be. It may be necessary to verify the identity of the website’s operator and/or the authenticity of the content relevant to a certain individual or organisation.

Fact and rumour must be distinguished. That’s especially true for material available on social media, where distortions may be deliberate or unintentional but where errors or rumours can spread like wildfire among the audience around the world in minutes, while corrections struggle to gain the same traction.

Using content from a social media site or other internet source to corroborate a truth may necessitate more scrutiny. All content that was not gathered by Us is disqualified, and we make it clear in our content.

 

Scroll to Top