Developing story context checklist for editors

What to take away

• Check the central fact before polishing the explanation.
• Give every number a source, unit, period, and status.
• Identify what changed and what stayed the same.
• Explain the process that controls the next step.
• Make uncertainty, corrections, and update times visible.

This checklist is for the editing pass between a reported draft and publication. It does not replace verification. It helps an editor see whether a new reader can understand the event, trace the central claims, and recognize the limits of the available evidence.

Use it in sections. A short update may not need every background element, but it still needs sound facts, clear time references, and honest attribution.

1. Central fact

• The first paragraph states what changed.
• The action, actor, place, and date are specific.
• The wording does not turn an allegation into an established fact.
• The headline and summary do not claim more than the article proves.
• A named source or record supports the central fact.

Read the headline separately from the body. If a reader saw only the headline, would it create a false impression? Qualifiers that carry meaning belong in the headline or summary, not buried in paragraph eight.

2. Attribution and evidence

• Direct observation is distinguished from secondhand reporting.
• Written statements are identified as written statements.
• A person with firsthand knowledge is not described vaguely as an expert.
• Anonymous sourcing has a stated reason and editorial approval.
• Documents are named with their date and issuing body.
• A linked source leads to the specific supporting page.

When the support is a document, the steps for reading an official document confirm version, authority, and completeness before the claim is repeated.

The Society of Professional Journalists' code tells journalists to verify before release, use original sources when possible, add context, update information, identify sources clearly, and correct errors. The SPJ ethics code PDF supports these review points while describing the code as guidance rather than an enforceable rule.

3. Numbers and comparisons

• Every figure has a unit and period.
• Preliminary and estimated totals are labeled.
• Percentage changes have a clear starting value.
• Counts from different agencies use compatible definitions.
• A record high or low names the record period.
• The comparison group is relevant and not selected for effect.

Do the arithmetic independently. If a release says a value doubled from 4 to 10, the stated description is wrong even though both numbers may be correct. Do not copy the error. For a draft whose central finding is numerical, the fuller statistical claim checklist also covers uncertainty, comparisons, and charts.

4. Chronology

• Event time is separate from announcement time.
• Dates use an unambiguous format.
• Time zones are stated when they could cause confusion.
• The sequence does not imply causation without evidence.
• Earlier events are included only when they explain the current one.
• The next scheduled decision or deadline is named.

For continuing coverage, compare the draft with the previous published version. Make sure an old preliminary number did not survive in a sidebar after the main text was revised. A maintained news timeline makes that comparison faster because each entry keeps its source and revision note.

5. Background and definitions

• A first-time reader can identify the main institutions and people.
• Technical terms are defined in the meaning used here.
• The governing rule or process is summarized accurately.
• Historical context is proportional to its relevance.
• The article distinguishes policy, practice, and allegation.
• The background has been checked against current records.

Background is not a storage area for every fact gathered. Keep the material that changes interpretation or helps the reader follow what happens next. When the governing process is public policy, the government policy reporting guide traces authority, dates, and delivery in order.

6. Fairness and harm

• The subject had a fair chance to respond to material criticism.
• The response is represented in proportion to the claim.
• Private details have a clear public-interest reason.
• Language about victims, suspects, and minors is precise.
• Images and captions do not imply facts outside the reporting.
• Opinion and analysis are labeled.

Fairness does not require two quotations of equal length. It requires an honest account of relevant evidence and a serious effort to obtain a response.

7. Corrections and update record

• The article displays its latest update time.
• A material correction says what was wrong and what is correct.
• The correction appears where readers can find it.
• Related graphics, captions, and social posts were checked.
• The newsroom retained the prior wording internally.

The Associated Press says written-document quotations should be identified as such, internet information should be vetted and attributed to its original source, and factual corrections should be labeled for audiences. The AP's storytelling standards page supports those specific practices. It describes AP policy, not a law that binds every publisher.

Final read

Read once for facts, once for a new reader, and once for unintended implication. Then ask a colleague to state the story in one sentence. If that sentence differs sharply from the intended finding, the structure or headline may still be misleading.

Common questions

Must every checklist box be marked before publication?

No. Some boxes will not apply. Any skipped item that affects a central claim should have a clear reason.

Who should perform the final context check?

An editor who did not write the first draft is ideal. In a small operation, the writer can take a short break and run separate fact, context, and language passes.

Does attribution remove the need to verify a claim?

No. Attribution tells readers who made the claim. Verification tests whether the publisher should repeat it and how it should be framed.

When does an update need a correction note?

Use one when the earlier version contained a material factual error. New information alone normally needs an update note, not a correction.