How we verify names, figures, claims and archive traces
Food security reporting can easily become vague or overstated. Our fact-checking policy exists to keep our work specific, attributable and usable.
What we verify before publication
We check names, dates, titles, organizations, locations, figures, quoted claims and source links. In practice, that means we verify basic identity facts first, then confirm the core reporting claim, then test whether context changes the meaning of the claim.
How we cross-check
We prefer more than one source when a factual point is central. For numerical claims, we compare the number with the source publication and, where possible, with an independent institutional or research reference. For biographical facts, we confirm against named organizational or public records. For organizational claims, we compare self-description with outside references.
How we handle social posts, screenshots and legacy pages
Social posts are treated as trace evidence, not self-validating proof. We check the account identity, timing and surrounding context before citing them. Screenshots are never enough on their own when the same claim can be verified through a live or archived source. Legacy pages and archived links are used carefully, especially when a current site no longer resolves but the historical record remains relevant.
How we treat interviews
Interviews can establish firsthand experience, local knowledge and attributable testimony. They do not automatically settle broad empirical questions. When a source speaks from experience, we preserve that value while cross-checking any broader factual claim that goes beyond personal testimony.
How we mark changes
If a factual correction is minor, we fix it promptly. If a correction affects interpretation, emphasis or chronology, we add a dated correction note in the article. If a claim cannot be sustained after publication, we remove or rewrite it rather than allowing a weak assertion to remain in place.
How readers can flag a problem
Readers can use our main contact email to flag factual errors, source issues, broken archive references or context they believe we have missed. We review these submissions against the same standards we apply internally and update published work when the evidence requires it.