How we examine the news

We help you move from an assertion to the evidence behind it. The same standards apply to public figures, news organizations and our own reporting.

1. Identify what is being asserted. Preserve the wording, speaker or publisher, date and context. Distinguish a reported allegation from the outlet’s own assertion, an opinion, a forecast or a factual conclusion.
2. Find the underlying evidence. Prefer original records, data and recordings. Check definitions, dates, units, denominators and the scope of a ruling. Trace repeated reports to their common source rather than counting copies as corroboration.
3. Look for what challenges the claim. Seek counterevidence, alternative explanations, corrections and missing context. An absent source does not establish that a claim is false.
4. Explain the finding precisely. State what the evidence supports and what it cannot establish. Separate legal allegations and provisional rulings from established legal outcomes. Do not infer a knowing lie merely from an error.
5. Explain why this matters. Concisely connect the story to current developments and relevant prior findings. Label historical context, comparison, documented connection or open question. Similarity is not causation. Connections expire for renewed review.
6. Examine the reporting itself. Check headlines, paraphrases, statistics, factual interpretation and relevant context. Record a factual error separately from framing. A faithful quotation of a false claim does not by itself make the publisher’s report false.
7. Make the assessment inspectable. Show sources, evidence, counterevidence, scope, dates, AI involvement and review status. Readers can challenge a finding and examine its correction history.

How to read an assessment

Source Watch and Bias Watch

Source Watch retains the exact reporting passage, publisher and story link, supporting and contradicting evidence, dates, review decisions and corrections. Potential factual errors begin as unconfirmed observations. A reviewer must supply evidence and reasoning to confirm an error, dismiss a flag or record a publisher correction. Bias Watch keeps these accuracy observations separate from observations about wording and framing. Neither a political viewpoint nor one mistake determines an outlet-wide rating.

Coverage and limitations

The current news intake supplies RSS headlines. Automatic research examines up to two factual assertions per headline and looks for web evidence; it does not check every statement in the full article. Framing checks examine the supplied wording. Budget limits, inaccessible records and incomplete context can leave a story unchecked. A link returned by an AI system is not a guarantee that its interpretation is right. Serious or disputed allegations require additional review.

Our reporting standards · Evidence and legal terms