Names and titles
We check spelling, honorifics, current titles, institutional roles, and whether a title was current at the time of the event, not merely at the time of publication.
Fact-checking is a separate discipline inside our workflow. Every desk is expected to verify its own reporting, but fact-check review adds a second layer for names, dates, figures, quotes, timelines, media assets, and archived material.
We check spelling, honorifics, current titles, institutional roles, and whether a title was current at the time of the event, not merely at the time of publication.
We verify event dates against primary sources and build simple timelines for conflict, policy, legal, and science stories where confusion is common.
Figures, percentages, budgets, research outcomes, and poll results are checked against the original publication or dataset before they appear in copy.
We aim to confirm material claims through more than one reliable source whenever the story allows. The need is strongest for breaking news, conflict reporting, health claims, viral social content, and politically charged narratives. Agreement between low-quality copies does not count as independent confirmation.
Archived and deleted pages are checked through multiple traces whenever possible: live remnants, cached snippets, mirrored feeds, timestamped shares, and surrounding public references. A screenshot on its own is not enough; we test URL structure, date logic, source provenance, and visual consistency before treating it as evidence.
We verify account identity, posting history, account age, prior impersonation risk, and whether media circulated elsewhere earlier. We do not rely on virality as a proxy for truth.
Readers can challenge a fact, number, quote, caption, translation, or contextual omission by writing to factcheck@worldnews2023.com. We review good-faith factual complaints, re-check the evidence trail, and either correct the copy, clarify the point, or explain why the original wording stands.