A Fact-Checking Guide for Producers
I teach audio journalism to undergraduate students and, during one class, I described fact-checking as “tedious.” A student replied, “But, don’t we need it to make things?”
I was humbled.
Yes, we do! And most producers will either have to take on fact-checking themselves or work with a fact-checker.
Fact-checking can be rocky, tedious, and full of tension. Sometimes there are nasty surprises, but they’re always better found before a piece goes out into the world.
A fact-checker is focused on accuracy, not misleading the audience, and protecting the credibility of a show or organization. A writer or producer wants their story to sparkle, to be full of magic, drama, and substance! Sometimes fact-checking can seem to be in tension with a producer’s vision.
Here are some tips for handling that tension, and making fact-checking a smooth(er) process. - Camille Petersen
THINKING LIKE A FACT-CHECKER
One of my first jobs in audio was fact checking a series about lies, scams, and fraud. The people in this series were obviously a special bunch. ✨ They were interviewed because their relationship to the truth was… fraught.
When I was fact checking, I set up a terrifying (but beautifully color-coded) spreadsheet where I dropped in every single line from an episode and labeled it “verified,” “unverified,” “murky,” or “false.”
Verified is easy — indisputable, proven fact. So is unverified — not true! It needs to be cut or changed.
The unverified or murky facts are where judgment and argument often come in. These are the things we simply cannot prove or disprove for sure… and we have to decide how comfortable we are with that.
As a fact-checker I considered a few things when faced with unverified or murky territory:
Risk: If we get this wrong, how bad will it be? How much damage would we cause?
Risks on “unverified” information we don’t want to take might include: giving bad medical advice, accusing a person or organization of wrongdoing without evidence, damaging a person’s reputation, mischaracterizing a body of research or a period of history, or generalizing about a group of people or their experiences.
Context: What understanding will listeners already have when they hear the information in question?
Will they know a guest has controversial views in their field on Gilded Age history? Will they know they had a famous, friendship-ending argument with the playwright they’re criticizing? Will they know research into an area of science or medicine is in its infancy, very provisional? If we use an analogy to explain something complicated, and simplify it in the process, do we get into some of the nuances later on so that a listener will have an accurate understanding of what we’re talking about by the end of the piece?
Consensus: Does our guest say something — or are we saying something — that is both unverified AND in sharp divergence from consensus on an issue?
That sends up a fact-checker’s alarms! If we’re gonna go out on a limb, we better have some solid evidence.
Consistency: Has a guest/source’s story changed in different accounts?
Also a red flag! We might want to tread carefully here, and a fact-checker might recommend explicitly saying a story we can’t verify has been inconsistent.
HOW TO MAKE A FACT-CHECKER HAPPY
🧐 Before you book an “expert” guest, take a close look at their work. Does their book have a detailed endnotes or references section where they’ve closely tracked and identified their sources? Are their papers published in major journals and cited frequently? Who reviewed their book, and did they say anything about its accuracy? Do they get asked by colleagues to discuss research on panels, invited to serve on recommendation or professional organization boards?
On the other hand, do some of their findings seem a little too good to be true, possible fodder for pop science outlets? When you do a deep dive on Google do you find peers and journalists questioning their work?
~ Some careful work at this stage will set you up for success during fact-checking ~
🤣 So your guest says the same thing in their book or article and you think that’s enough to support it in your episode… that’s cute! A fact-checker is RARELY going to be pleased with a secondary source. That means going into the book, checking the footnote, and sharing that primary source with a fact-checker. Same goes for a statistic or research finding — don’t link to an article quoting it, link to the original source.
🗂️ Paper trail, please! Fact-checkers love records and documents, so you might want to start a conversation early on with people you interview about whether those will be available, and if they’d be willing to share them. You’re looking for records that validate your story.
Newspaper clippings, videos, photographs, recordings
Official documents like meeting agendas, bank records, court filings, licenses, registrations, correspondences with government agencies
Letters, notes, emails, screenshots, social media posts, receipts 💸
~ More than fact-checking, much of this is just part of good, thorough reporting! ~
✅ Find consensus statements, recommendations, and official reports or investigations.
📝Run things by someone else with knowledge of the topic, or a witness to an event. If you’re relying on one person’s recollection of an event or characterization of a topic, see if there’s anyone else who can back it up or at least confirm that it's reasonable.
HOW TO RESOLVE FACT-CHECKING DISAGREEMENTS
Let’s say you’ve followed the best practices, but a fact-checker comes back and says “you need to cut this beat about the microbiome” or “you need to rewrite this narrative about what happened to Lacy in Denver.” And you disagree! How can you find a way forward?
Call back to those fact-checking principles: risk, context, consensus, and consistency.
~ Offering solutions is much better than just pushing back! ~
If risk is limited, remind your fact-checker of that.
“This anecdote from Dr. Joyce doesn’t make any medical claims. It’s there to show rapport between her and the host.”
“It’s really clear this story about starting a lemonade stand is there to show Ursula was interested in entrepreneurship from a young age.”
Ask if more context will help, and propose solutions.
“Can we write that some scientists DO think umami is a fifth basic taste, but the research is highly controversial and disputed right now?”
“How about we specify that their research was done in a particular kind of workplace, and the findings might be specific to that setting?”
Point to additional sources that establish consensus or credibility.
“I understand recommendations on melatonin are controversial, but the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s latest guidelines are definitive and side with our guest.”
“The congressional committee on antitrust law cited our guest’s work several times as proof of Facebook’s wrongdoing. It’s clearly well-regarded research, even if some people disagree with it.”
Think about whether it’s a specific word or phrase that’s really the issue, and could simply be cut.
“Is it the ‘in the last few years’ part of our guest’s statement that’s causing issues? We can cut that one phrase if so.”
“Are you worried the guest saying ‘NO ONE has looked into this’ might be wrong? Can we just cut that rather than this whole beat about black holes?”
Suggest caveats.
“I understand that opioid prescriptions started rising in 1992 but our guest noticed this starting in 1995. Can we add ‘he remembers’ to make it clear this is HIS perspective on the trend, not a data-driven analysis?”
“Will saying ‘she SAYS’ give us some cover on this and indicate that this is her analysis of the situation?”
Propose “showing our work” so listeners know establishing something in the episode is tricky, but we’ve done our due diligence.
“What if we come out of Wilfred’s tape saying we were unable to verify their account of discrimination at a local bank but a lawyer who’s dealt with hundreds of these cases says it’s common.”
“What if we say we weren’t able to find the exact blog post Jodie remembers but we found dozens of others just like it?”
And if you’re really stuck, think about other people who might be useful. Does your host have knowledge and context that could resolve the issue? Does an editor need to step in and arbitrate? Could another producer see the issue with a set of fresh eyes and find a creative way forward?
Done the right way, fact-checking can even be a fun creative challenge or puzzle.
And maybe it’s even worth baking some of the liveliest, most compelling parts of fact-checking into your script. Your efforts at finding the “truth” could be good storytelling.