Fact-Checking, Verification & Source Attribution Policy

1. Introduction

At VALCORED News Network, accuracy is fundamental to responsible journalism.

We recognise that readers rely on news organisations to distinguish verified information from speculation, misinformation, allegations and unsubstantiated claims.

Our Fact-Checking, Verification & Source Attribution Policy establishes the standards governing how VNN evaluates information, identifies reliable sources, verifies factual claims and communicates uncertainty.

The objective is to ensure that information published under the VNN name is supported by reasonable evidence, accurately attributed and presented in a manner that does not materially mislead readers.

Our guiding principle is:

Accuracy before speed. Evidence before assertion. Transparency before assumption.

2. Scope of This Policy

This policy applies to all editorial material published or distributed by VNN, including:

• Breaking-news reports.
• Developing stories and live updates.
• National and international news.
• Political and government reporting.
• Health, science and technology coverage.
• Business and financial reporting.
• Investigative journalism.
• Interviews and eyewitness accounts.
• Opinion articles containing factual claims.
• News analysis and explanatory journalism.
• Photographs, illustrations and videos.
• News tickers, banners and alerts.
• Social media and newsletter summaries.
• Syndicated and externally sourced reporting.
• AI-assisted or automated editorial content.

All editorial personnel and contributors are expected to apply verification standards appropriate to the significance and potential consequences of the information being published.

3. Our Core Verification Principles

VNN’s verification framework is based on the following commitments.

3.1 Accuracy

Material factual claims should be supported by credible evidence.

3.2 Source Reliability

Information should be assessed according to its origin, credibility, independence and potential limitations.

3.3 Corroboration

Significant claims should be independently corroborated where reasonably practicable.

3.4 Context

Facts should not be presented in a way that creates a materially misleading impression.

3.5 Attribution

Readers should be able to identify the origin of significant information unless legitimate confidentiality considerations justify withholding a source’s identity.

3.6 Transparency

Where information cannot be independently confirmed, the limitation should be communicated clearly.

3.7 Accountability

Material factual errors should be reviewed and corrected through appropriate editorial procedures.

4. Our Standard Fact-Checking Process

Before publication, editorial personnel should take reasonable steps to complete the following process.

Step 1 — Identify the Central Claims

Determine the factual assertions on which the story depends.

Particular attention should be given to names, dates, locations, numerical figures, allegations, quotations, legal proceedings and statements capable of affecting public safety or individual reputations.

Step 2 — Identify the Original Source

Establish where the information first originated.

Distinguish original reporting from articles that merely repeat another publisher’s account.

Step 3 — Assess Source Credibility

Consider whether the source has direct knowledge, relevant expertise or reliable documentary evidence.

Evaluate possible financial, political, personal or institutional interests that might affect the information.

Step 4 — Seek Corroboration

Where appropriate, examine independent evidence that supports or contradicts the claim.

Step 5 — Check Context and Limitations

Determine whether material information has been omitted or whether a statement could be misleading without additional explanation.

Step 6 — Review Attribution

Ensure that quotations, statistics, photographs, documents and externally reported information receive appropriate identification and credit.

Step 7 — Conduct Editorial Review

Evaluate the story for accuracy, fairness, legal risk, public-interest relevance and consistency with VNN’s editorial standards.

Step 8 — Maintain Appropriate Records

Retain relevant verification notes, source links and editorial decisions where lawful, proportionate and appropriate.

The depth of verification should increase with the seriousness, sensitivity and potential impact of the story.

5. Primary and Secondary Sources

5.1 Primary Sources

Primary sources provide direct evidence or first-hand information.

Examples include:

• Official government documents.
• Original court judgments and records.
• Direct interviews.
• Authenticated eyewitness accounts.
• Original scientific research.
• Company filings and regulatory disclosures.
• Official emergency-service statements.
• Publicly available legislation.
• Verified original images and video recordings.
• Directly observed events.

Primary sources should be preferred where they are available and relevant.

However, an official statement may still contain incomplete, contested or subsequently corrected information.

Its official status does not make every claim unquestionable.

5.2 Secondary Sources

Secondary sources interpret, summarise or report information obtained elsewhere.

Examples include:

• News articles from other publishers.
• Research summaries.
• Expert analyses.
• Historical reporting.
• Industry publications.
• Institutional commentaries.

Secondary reporting can be valuable but must be assessed for reliability.

Repeating the same claim through several publications does not necessarily establish independent corroboration if every publication relies on the same original source.

6. Reporting from Other News Organisations

VNN may report on developments initially covered by other news organisations.

When doing so, we aim to acknowledge the original reporting appropriately.

We distinguish between:

Original VNN Reporting: Information independently gathered or materially developed through VNN’s own reporting.

VNN Follow-Up Reporting: Reporting that begins with information from another source and includes additional verification, context or original reporting.

Attributed Reporting: Information reported by another identified organisation and clearly attributed to that organisation.

Syndicated or Licensed Content: Third-party material published under an applicable licence or other lawful authorisation.

VNN must not imply that it conducted interviews, obtained documents or carried out investigations that were actually undertaken by another publisher.

Attribution does not replace the need to respect copyright or obtain necessary licences.

7. Evaluating Anonymous Sources

Anonymous sources may be considered when identification presents legitimate risks or would prevent the disclosure of significant public-interest information.

Before relying on an anonymous source, editorial personnel should assess:

1. Whether the source’s identity is known to an authorised editorial decision-maker.
2. Whether the source has credible access to the relevant information.
3. Whether the information is sufficiently important to justify anonymity.
4. Whether the source may have motives to mislead.
5. Whether independent corroboration is available.
6. Whether the account is internally consistent.
7. Whether anonymity would prevent adequate scrutiny of an important allegation.
8. Whether a confidentiality assurance can realistically be maintained.

The use of an anonymous source for a serious allegation should receive additional editorial scrutiny.

VNN does not promise that source confidentiality is absolute or immune from applicable legal processes.

8. Eyewitness Accounts

Eyewitness reports may provide valuable information during emergencies or developing events.

However, eyewitness perception and recollection may be affected by stress, limited visibility, confusion or incomplete knowledge.

VNN should distinguish what a witness personally observed from conclusions the witness has drawn.

Where feasible, eyewitness accounts should be compared with other evidence.

Descriptions such as “confirmed” or “verified” should not be used solely because an individual confidently describes an event.

9. Social Media Verification

Social media posts, images and videos should not automatically be treated as reliable evidence.

Editorial personnel should consider:

• The identity and authenticity of the account.
• Whether the material is original or reposted.
• The actual date and location of the event.
• Signs of editing or manipulation.
• Whether the content predates the reported event.
• Whether the account has first-hand knowledge.
• Whether independent evidence supports the claim.
• Whether the content is satire, parody or intentionally misleading.

Large numbers of likes, shares or comments do not establish factual accuracy.

Where verification remains incomplete, that limitation should be stated.

10. Photographic and Video Verification

Visual material should be evaluated according to its source, authenticity and context.

Where warranted, checks may include:

1. Identifying the original creator or uploader.
2. Reviewing available metadata.
3. Examining whether the image has appeared previously.
4. Comparing visual landmarks with known locations.
5. Checking weather, lighting or other contextual details.
6. Identifying material edits or synthetic elements.
7. Assessing whether the recording has been cropped or selectively presented.
8. Confirming the relevant usage rights.

Reverse-image searches, geolocation analysis and other technical methods may assist verification, but their outputs must be interpreted carefully.

A realistic-looking image is not necessarily authentic.

11. Quotations and Interviews

Direct quotations must accurately reflect what a person said or wrote.

Editorial personnel must not invent statements, fabricate interviews or attribute words to individuals who did not use them.

Minor editing for readability must not materially alter meaning.

Paraphrased statements must not be presented as verbatim quotations.

Where translations are involved, VNN should take reasonable steps to preserve the original meaning.

Interview summaries should distinguish the interviewee’s factual assertions from independently established facts.

12. Statistics, Surveys and Research

Numerical claims can strongly influence public understanding and require careful examination.

Before publishing material statistics, VNN should consider:

• The original data source.
• The period covered.
• The relevant population.
• Sample size and methodology.
• Whether figures are preliminary or final.
• Whether comparisons use equivalent measures.
• Whether percentages and absolute numbers are accurately represented.
• Whether correlations are being incorrectly presented as causation.
• Whether important limitations have been omitted.

Polls should identify the commissioning organisation and relevant methodological information where available and material.

Scientific findings should be described in terms consistent with the quality and limitations of the evidence.

13. Reporting Allegations and Disputed Claims

Allegations must not be presented as established facts without adequate evidence.

Where significant allegations are made, VNN should consider:

1. The credibility of the source.
2. Available supporting documentation.
3. Independent corroboration.
4. Relevant legal restrictions.
5. Whether an affected party should be approached for comment.
6. The seriousness of potential reputational harm.
7. Whether the public interest supports publication.

Language such as “alleged”, “according to”, “the organisation claims” or “the court heard” should be used accurately and consistently with the evidence.

Attribution alone does not remove the legal risks associated with repeating potentially defamatory allegations.

14. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Verification

Artificial intelligence may assist with organising information, transcription, translation, document analysis and research workflows.

However, AI-generated responses can include fabricated facts, incorrect citations, misleading summaries and non-existent sources.

VNN will not treat an AI system as an authoritative source for factual reporting.

Material AI-generated claims should be checked against trustworthy evidence before publication.

Automated fact-checking tools may support editorial review but do not replace accountable human judgement.

AI-generated quotations, invented sources or fictional eyewitness accounts must never be presented as authentic journalism.

15. Breaking-News Verification

Breaking news often develops before a complete factual picture is available.

VNN may publish appropriately attributed preliminary information when there is sufficient justification and the material is clearly qualified.

However, the need for speed does not justify knowingly publishing false or unsupported claims.

Where information remains uncertain, readers should be told what is known, what remains unclear and which sources support the available information.

Reports should be updated as credible information becomes available.

16. Verification Labels and Source Disclosures

Depending on the nature of the content, VNN may use the following descriptions:

Confirmed: A material fact supported by sufficiently reliable evidence for the relevant editorial context.

Independently Verified: A claim checked through an actual independent verification process conducted or commissioned by VNN.

According to Official Sources: Information attributed to a specified official authority.

Reported by [Source]: Information attributed to an identified external publisher.

Unverified: Information that has not met the relevant verification threshold.

Developing Information concerning an ongoing event for which material circumstances remain subject to change.

These labels must accurately reflect the work undertaken.

No automated system should add an “Independently Verified” label unless the required verification has genuinely occurred.

17. Corrections and Reassessment

Verification responsibilities continue after publication.

When significant new evidence challenges a published account, VNN should reassess the information.

Appropriate action may include:

• Correcting an inaccurate detail.
• Clarifying a misleading passage.
• Adding verified context.
• Updating a developing report.
• Publishing an editor’s note.
• Retracting seriously defective content.
• Restricting material where required by law or justified by serious risk.

Material errors should not be concealed through unexplained editing.

18. Reader Contributions to Accuracy

Readers may submit information challenging or clarifying a factual statement.

Submissions should identify the article, disputed claim and relevant supporting evidence.

Corrections Contact

Reasonable editorial enquiries will be considered according to their significance and available evidence.

Submission does not guarantee that a requested correction will be made.

19. Responsibility and Review

Responsibility for implementing this policy rests with VNN’s designated editorial management.

Contributors are responsible for making accurate representations about the sources and verification supporting their work.

Deliberate fabrication, material plagiarism or knowingly false attribution may result in editorial review and other proportionate action.

This policy should be reviewed at least annually and following significant changes to editorial technology or publishing practices.

20. Our Commitment

VNN recognises that responsible journalism requires more than repeating information.

It requires examining evidence, identifying its limitations and communicating honestly with readers.

We would rather explain what remains unknown than publish certainty unsupported by evidence.