How to Verify a Source or Document Before You Publish

Why does verification come before publishing?

The SPJ Code of Ethics asks you to take responsibility for the accuracy of your work ^[1]. It tells you to verify information before you release it ^[1]. It also says to use original sources whenever possible ^[1].

Hurry is not a defense. The code says neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy ^[1]. A rushed post or a short social-media format does not excuse an unverified claim ^[1].

This guide covers human sources, photos, video, and documents. It ends with leaked material and what to do when you cannot confirm something.

What two questions start every check?

The Verification Handbook says the question at the heart of verification is "How do you know that?" ^[2] You ask it of sources. Editors ask it of reporters ^[2].

Then ask a second question: "How else do you know that?" ^[2] That one pushes you toward more than one path to confirmation ^[2].

The handbook's Sago mine example shows what happens when no one challenges how a source knows something. A governor's statement about trapped miners was wrong ^[2]. It rested on second- and thirdhand accounts, and nobody challenged how he knew the miners were alive ^[2].

Apply the same pressure to officials. The handbook says to question seemingly authoritative sources as aggressively as you challenge any source ^[2]. A title or a letterhead is not proof ^[2].

Video from First Draft (YouTube channel @FirstDraftNews). Open at youtube.com. Content from youtube.com loads only if you click.

How do you check a human source?

Start with what the person actually saw. Ask whether they witnessed it or heard it from someone else ^[2]. Secondhand accounts are how the Sago error happened ^[2].

The handbook's author draws a hard lesson from his own reporting: do not trust even honest witnesses, and seek documentation ^[2]. An honest person can still be wrong. Ask what paper, photo, or record backs the claim ^[2].

Next, look at motive. The SPJ Code says to consider a source's motives before you promise anonymity ^[1]. It reserves anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm ^[1]. Those sources must also have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere ^[1].

Whenever you can, name your sources. The code says the public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources ^[1]. If you grant anonymity, give readers as much context as you safely can ^[1].

How do you verify a photo or video?

Start with provenance. The Verification Handbook's checks for user-generated content open with one question: is this the original piece of content ^[3]? Work backward from copies toward the first upload ^[3].

The handbook says the ultimate goal is to identify the original uploader and get in touch with them ^[3]. Then put your two questions to that person ^[2].

Video from Mike Reilley (YouTube channel @spjdepaul). Open at youtube.com. Content from youtube.com loads only if you click.

Check dates with care. YouTube date stamps its videos using Pacific Standard Time ^[3]. That can make a video look as if someone uploaded it before the event took place ^[3]. Do not read a time stamp as a verdict until you know the time zone ^[3].

Accept limits. The handbook says no technology can automatically verify a piece of user-generated content with 100 percent certainty ^[3]. Tools help you look. They do not decide for you ^[3].

When the checks do not give clear answers, whether to use witness content is an editorial decision ^[3]. Make that decision on purpose, and write down why.

The worksheet below turns these questions into a checklist you can fill in for each video.

How do you verify a document, step by step?

Use these steps for any document that reaches you.

1. Say what the document claims to be: a memo, a court filing, a government report. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, a party offering evidence in federal court must support a finding that the item is what it claims to be ^[4].
2. Ask how the source got it. Put "How do you know that?" to the person who gave it to you ^[2].
3. Go to the original. Use original sources whenever possible, so contact the office that issued or holds the record ^[1].
4. Ask for a certified copy. Federal evidence rules treat a certified copy of an official record as self-authenticating ^[5]. The certification comes from the custodian, another authorized person, or a qualifying certificate ^[5].
5. Check for a signature or seal. The U.S. Government Publishing Office applies digital signatures to many of its official PDFs ^[6]. The next section explains how to test one.
6. Find a second path. Ask "How else do you know that?" and look for a separate record or person that confirms it ^[2].
7. Keep your file. Save the original and note who gave it to you and when you checked it. Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate ^[1].

A certified copy is a federal court idea, but the habit works anywhere. Ask the office for the version it will stand behind ^[5].

If you report on your own, keep records of your work. Our guide to press credentials for independent reporters explains one way to document your work.

How do you check an official government PDF?

The U.S. Government Publishing Office uses digital signature technology on many official PDFs ^[6]. The signature provides evidence of authenticity and integrity and safeguards against unauthorized changes ^[6].

GovInfo says the recommended way to verify a signed PDF is to open it in Adobe Acrobat or Reader ^[6].

Do not rely on your browser. Many browsers open PDFs without Adobe's software, and then validation may not occur ^[6].

Watch for the warning. If someone alters a GPO-certified PDF, the certification is invalidated ^[6]. A yellow warning icon appears in the Adobe software ^[6].

Know the limits. Text copied out of a signed PDF does not carry the signature with it ^[6]. So a pasted excerpt sent to you cannot be checked this way ^[6]. The check applies to GPO's signed files. For anything else, return to steps one through four above.

What do courts ask about authenticity?

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, a party offering evidence in federal court must show enough to support a finding ^[4]. The finding is that the item is what the party claims it is ^[4].

This is a court rule, not a newsroom rule ^[4]. Treat it as an analogy that states the core question ^[4].

Passing the test is not the end. The rule's advisory notes say meeting the authentication requirement does not by itself assure that an item is admitted into evidence ^[4]. Other bars, such as hearsay, may remain ^[4].

Rule 902 treats certified copies of official records as self-authenticating ^[5]. Even so, the notes say the opposing party is not foreclosed from disputing authenticity ^[5].

Take the newsroom lesson. A seal, a signature, or an official look is a good sign. It is not the end of the questions ^[5]. You still question seemingly authoritative sources as aggressively as any other ^[2].

If you need a way to show editors and sources that you are a working journalist, NPA membership is free to apply for.

What about leaked or illegally obtained material?

Leaks raise a legal question on top of the accuracy question. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press discusses Bartnicki v. Vopper, a Supreme Court decision ^[7]. It says the case likely protects journalists who publish material a third party obtained illegally ^[7].

The Reporters Committee says this likely holds in most cases, even when the journalist knows the material's illegal origin but did not participate in the illegal acquisition ^[7]. It also says a reporter's legal risk will likely turn on how active a role they played in the illegal acquisition ^[7].

Notice the hedges: likely, and in most cases ^[7]. Those words matter. This is one group's reading, not a promise about your situation.

State law may differ, so check your state's law. A lawyer who handles media cases can tell you where the lines sit for your facts ^[7]. Read the Reporters Committee guide before you decide ^[7].

The SPJ Code adds an ethical layer. It says legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish ^[1]. Having a document lawfully does not settle whether you should publish it ^[1].

Run every step above on a leaked file, too ^[2]. A related podcast is below.

What if you cannot fully verify it?

Sometimes the checks leave gaps. When checks on witness content leave gaps, using it is an editorial decision ^[3]. Make it deliberately, with an editor or a trusted peer if you can.

Do not let a deadline make the call. The SPJ Code says neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy ^[1].

If you publish, show your work. Identify sources clearly so readers can judge their reliability and motives ^[1]. Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate ^[1]. Tell readers what you confirmed and what you could not ^[1].