Maintenance
Part of Background Briefing Guide for Newsrooms
8 things a background briefing checklist has to cover
Background briefing checklist for scope, source support, chronology, institutions, definitions, data, visuals, attribution, uncertainty, updates, and final review.
What to take away
- Test scope and the opening answer before polishing details.
- Check each context element against a specific reader need.
- Review data and visuals as evidence, not decoration.
- Label disputed, preliminary, estimated, and superseded material.
- Record update triggers and owners before publication.
Use this checklist after the reporting draft exists and before final publication. It is designed for background briefings and explanatory packages, not live-update posts. Mark each item yes, no, not applicable, or needs work. A blank answer is not a pass. The drafting method it audits is the background briefing guide.
1. Scope and reader purpose
- The title names the subject without claiming a conclusion the evidence cannot support.
- The opening defines the current event, decision, or condition.
- The geographic area and time period are clear.
- The intended reader and likely entry question are recorded in the assignment.
- The draft states or reflects what falls outside its scope.
- Every major section helps answer the defined question.
- Historical detail has a stated connection to the present issue.
2. Opening and structure
- The direct answer appears before supporting history.
- Headings describe the reader's question or the section's finding.
- Heading levels follow a consistent hierarchy.
- Lists are used for genuine sequences or grouped items.
- Tables compare the same fields across entries.
- The conclusion does not introduce unsupported new material.
Digital.gov's guidance on writing useful headings recommends headings that help people predict what follows and notes that question-and-answer headings can fit material organized around audience questions. It also warns against too many heading levels. Apply those principles with editorial judgment, since a legal analysis or data note may need declarative headings for precision.
Draft structure order
- Direct answer first
- Supporting history after
- Headings predict what follows
- Consistent heading hierarchy
- Conclusion adds no new material
3. Source support
- Each material factual claim points to the record that supports it.
- The source is specific to the claim, not merely related to the subject.
- The publishing institution, document title, date, and version are recorded.
- Quotations match the source and retain conditions that change meaning.
- A summary has been checked against the complete report where available.
- A filing or allegation is not written as an adjudicated fact.
- Contradictory evidence is described or resolved.
- Two citations are not being used to create an illusion of corroboration when both repeat one original claim.
Source-chain checks of this kind are unpacked in the source material comparison.
Source support checks
- Claim points to supporting record
- Source specific to claim
- Institution, title, date, version recorded
- Quotations match and keep conditions
- Summary checked against full report
- Allegation not written as adjudicated fact
4. Time, process, and institutions
- Every important event has an exact date or a clearly bounded period.
- Sequence is not presented as proof of cause.
Chronology discipline, including entry selection and causal restraint, is covered by the news timeline method for ordering events. Current rules are kept separate from proposals and older published editions, and formal requirements are kept separate from common practice.
Chronology and institutions
- Eventexact date or bounded period
- Sequencenot proof of cause
- Rulescurrent vs proposals vs older editions
- Requirementsformal vs common practice
- Institutionauthority and limits stated
- Milestoneidentified, result not predicted
Each institution's authority and limits are stated clearly and accurately, and a spokesperson's statement is not confused with an independent finding of fact. The next formal milestone is identified without predicting its own result.
5. Definitions and numbers
- Technical terms are defined before they control the explanation.
- The same term is used consistently across text, tables, and captions.
- Counts, rates, percentages, averages, and estimates are labeled correctly.
- Denominators and comparison periods are visible.
- Units and adjustment status are stated.
- Revisions and breaks in a series are marked.
- Precision does not exceed what the source can justify.
The numeric sections summarize the fuller statistical claim checklist.
Definitions and numbers checks
- Technical terms defined before use
- Same term across text, tables, captions
- Counts, rates, percentages labeled correctly
- Denominators and comparison periods visible
- Units and adjustment status stated
- Revisions and series breaks marked
- Precision within source limits
6. Visuals
- Each visual answers a stated question.
- The title describes the measure, group, place, and period as needed.
- The source and extraction or release date appear with the visual.
- Axes, units, legend, categories, and annotations are readable.
- The caption distinguishes observation from interpretation.
- The text does not contradict the visual.
- Missing, estimated, or suppressed data are explained.
- Media credit points to the exact asset record and states the license.
The Census Bureau's economic time-series chart documentation lists contextual fields such as the source, category, geography, date range, item, data type, adjustment status, units, confidence limits when used, and extraction timestamp. Not every visual needs every field, but the list is a sound check against charts that lose their meaning when copied or updated.
Visual quality checks
- Each visual answers stated question
- Title names measure, group, place, period
- Source and extraction date shown
- Axes, units, legend readable
- Caption separates observation from interpretation
- Text does not contradict visual
- Missing or estimated data explained
7. Uncertainty and attribution
- Preliminary, estimated, modeled, disputed, and unknown facts are labeled near the claim.
- Attribution appears before readers could mistake a party's claim for a verified fact.
- Anonymous sourcing follows the newsroom's rules and explains authority where possible.
- A disclosed interest is described without being treated as proof of error.
The expert report desk case shows that rule applied to a company-funded study.
- Expert qualifications match the exact subject discussed.
- The draft says what evidence would answer an open question.
8. Maintenance and final test
- Relative time phrases have been replaced with dates where needed.
- Every section has a review trigger or has been judged stable.
- One editor owns corrections across the full package.
- The source ledger preserves the checked version.
- A reader unfamiliar with the reporting can state the main answer, evidence, uncertainty, and next step.
- The meta description accurately states what the page provides.
- The FAQ answers real follow-up questions without repeating headings.
Common questions
Must every checklist item be marked yes?
No. Some will be not applicable. Any no or needs-work item affecting accuracy, scope, attribution, or evidence should be resolved before publication.
Who should run the checklist?
The reporter should complete the first pass. An editor who did not build the draft should test the reader view and evidence trail.
Does a source ledger replace line editing?
No. It shows where claims came from. The editor still has to test wording, logic, context, and whether the source supports the sentence.
How often should a published briefing be checked?
Use event-based triggers and scheduled reviews. Fast-changing subjects may need daily checks, while stable historical context may need review only when new records appear.
