SKB: Why is it important to look for a primary source?
ML: I have a good example: I was mentoring a student intern at National Geographic and she was researching an article for us. It was a short, two-paragraph thing that was going to be in the front of the magazine. If I remember correctly, it was about this study that had been making waves about redheads going extinct — and this claim had been published in lots of places.
She reached out to the actual scientist whose research was being discussed and he told her, “I am so glad you reached out to me because people are not understanding my science. They are misrepresenting it.”
SKB: Yes, primary sources are key. What about other sources?
ML: If finding primary sources is not possible, then I use reputable secondary sources: sources that I know are also fact-checked. So, National Geographic, Smithsonian, New Yorker, and other organizations that I know use fact-checkers who take their journalism very seriously. That includes most major, big-city news outlets: New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Boston, Chicago.
Then there are academic journals. Google Scholar is a good place to search. I definitely tell people not to just use Wikipedia, but you can use it as a starting off point, because a lot of Wikipedia pages put in their sources. Then you can go in to see if there are reputable sources you can check.
I rely on information from university, NGO, and government websites to confirm facts because that is where the research and long-term studies occur. Those scientists and experts spend their lives working on an issue and have deep knowledge and the most current data and insight. Without access to these sites, or trust that those who have spent their life working on these issues are still in control of the data, fact-checking becomes very difficult.
SKB: Trust is an important point, and knowing which sources fact-check is key. As we both know, January has been eventful: We’ve been watching critical data disappear from government websites; we’ve seen Meta cut fact-checking. But luckily some publications — including ours — still see fact-checking as crucial.
Let’s go through the fact-check lifecycle of a story: You get a story from an editor for fact-check. Then what happens?
ML: The first thing I do is read the article — twice. I highlight everything that could be looked up — everything from place names, to spellings, to locations, statistics, figures, anything and everything. I’ll even go down to the specifics of whether it should be “a submarine” or “the submarine” — is it the one and only of this thing or one of several?
SKB: Then what?
ML: Usually the author has sent me their sources, so I’ll look at what they used to get their facts. If I feel like the source they used is the same source I would use, that it’s a reputable source that matches the text, I can cross that off.
Then I start diving into the ones that haven’t been sourced. I start with finding out who the primary person on each fact is. Or maybe it’s historical or I can’t reach that person, then I pivot to finding those really reputable secondary sources.
SKB: Some people might imagine fact-checking as an analytic and solitary process, but that’s not always the case. What are some of the people skills you’ve used in fact-checking?
ML: For me, it’s mostly sending emails or WhatsApp messages. I introduce myself, explain that I’m fact-checking this article and have a few questions because I want to make sure our information in the article is correct. Then, I write out my questions.
I have found that most people are really happy to help fact-check because they want to make sure the information is accurate. I think being friendly and open to them giving answers is important. And I make sure I write the questions so that they’re open-ended. I’m not making an assumption about what their answer will be.
SKB: I know a lot of journalists are not only open to the fact-checking process but also relieved that the publication running the story wants to make sure it’s accurate.
ML: I was going to say — I was talking mostly about the experts I reach out to, but yes, I found that in working with the authors, too.
No one likes to be told, “Hey, you got something wrong.” But presenting it in a kind way helps. There’s a way to have that conversation.
SKB: There’s a lot of teamwork involved in the editorial process. Having fact-checkers work in tandem with journalists can be a beautiful part of the process. But there are challenges as well. Are there aspects of your job that keep you up at night?
ML: Yeah. Sometimes you work on stories that are just really difficult topics, and you know that you’re going to make people upset.
I once worked on an article about human trafficking. That’s a really touchy topic. We worked on that story for nearly three years. It covered all forms of human trafficking: debt bondage, sex trafficking, household labor bondage, fieldwork bondage, organ trafficking, and illegal adoption.
We were talking about companies in the United States that either purposefully or inadvertently (through subcontractors, for example) may be benefiting from slave labor. Having those conversations and trying to fact-check that with corporate people was angst-ridden because you know they’re not going to be happy about it. You want to present it accurately, not just gloss over things. But you also want to make sure you’re not saying things that are inaccurate or libelous. It was a fine line to walk.
SKB: On the other hand, are there aspects of your job that give you hope?
ML: Yes. I love the people that I meet through my research, working with authors and editors — and then the people that they are writing about and their stories. They are doing so many amazing things, and it’s really nice to reach out to them and talk to them about their work. So many of them are helping the world, and then they’re appreciative that their work is being represented in an accurate way. They feel heard and valued.
SKB: You mentioned wanting to spend more time with long-form journalism, which can be deeper and more methodical. Are you finding this through fact-checking?
ML: I do! I find that I go down rabbit holes. Sometimes what I’m researching I’ll think, “Oh, that’s so interesting!” And I’ll just read more and more. Or ask people follow up questions that aren’t always completely necessary, just for my own curiosity!
SKB: That’s one of the joys of working in journalism. It’s joyful but also so important. Why do you think fact-checking is so critical?
ML: It’s always been important, but it’s especially important these days, when misinformation and disinformation is out there so much. Making sure the information is accurate, current, gives an outlet like Hidden Compass a reputation that is valued.
It’s having people be able to go and read a Hidden Compass article and enjoy it and feel like they’re experiencing that adventure, but also knowing that everything they’re learning in there is accurate and true. So when they’re talking with their friends at a cocktail party or over coffee, and they say, “Hey, I read this really cool thing!” — they’re not passing along misinformation.
SKB: It honors our readers.
ML: Exactly.
SKB: But it also honors our journalists, who are really putting themselves out there. They deserve to have a team that backs them up and makes sure that what they’re publishing is true.
ML: I agree. Every journalist I’ve worked with has always appreciated the fact-checking process — even though they may not always enjoy it! They know we’re working with them to make sure what they’re putting out into the world is going to be the best it can be and earn the readers’ trust.
SKB: I so appreciate the journalists we work with. And I appreciate your work fact-checking with us. It’s a huge part of our mission.
ML: You bet! I’m so appreciative, too.
