OUR FACT-CHECKING METHODOLOGY

At CableCheck, we believe that credible journalism rests on rigorous research and thorough investigation. Our fact-checking team adheres to a systematic process designed to ensure accuracy, clarity, and transparency.

1. Claim Sourcing

All CableCheck team members, monitor the information landscape for potentially misleading claims or false news. Using digital tools, we track trending topics, misinformation, and rumours across social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. In addition to media monitoring, we regularly scan news articles, TV interviews and press releases for potential inaccuracies. Audience members also play a role by sending claims to our email and social media accounts. Our team proactively identifies potential areas of misinformation in current events, political campaigns, and social trends. Any staff member who spots a claim passes it to the CableCheck team, where the fact-checking process is then initiated.

2. Claim Assessment

When a claim is identified, it is reviewed against CableCheck’s criteria (see methodology page). If the claim meets these standards, the fact-checking process begins with:

  • Claim Identification: Stating the exact claim being investigated.

  • Source Attribution: Verifying the source of the claim and understanding their background.

  • Contextual Analysis: Examining the claim’s origin and context.

  • Spread Tracking: Following where and how the claim is being circulated.

  • Fact Verification: Outlining the verification methods, tools, and sources consulted.

 

3. Fact-Checking Process

a) Research and Investigation
CableCheck’s team prioritises accuracy by consulting primary sources (e.g., original documents, data, and eyewitness accounts) and credible secondary sources, such as reputable news articles, academic studies, and government reports. We cross-reference these findings to ensure reliability. For complex topics, we also engage subject matter experts to validate technical details.

We utilise existing fact-checking databases and platforms to cross-check claims and employ data analysis tools to verify statistical claims. For visual content, our team uses image and video verification tools, including reverse image search and specialized software, to detect digital manipulation, such as deepfakes.

b) Verdict / Rating System
After thorough research, we assign a rating based on the evidence:

  • True: Accurate and backed by credible evidence.

  • False: Demonstrably incorrect.

  • Misleading: Partially true but lacks context, creating a false impression.

  • Partly True/False: Contains both true and false elements.

  • No Evidence: Insufficient evidence to confirm accuracy.

 

4. Publication and Transparency

CableCheck values transparency and ensures every fact-check undergoes multiple layers of review:

This collaborative, replicable process enhances trust by allowing readers to follow our steps and reach similar conclusions. Our commitment to transparency empowers our audience to be discerning consumers of information, fostering trust in the information they receive from CableCheck.

HOW WE SELECT CLAIMS

False news, in the form of disinformation and misinformation, is constantly evolving, taking various formats within the media landscape. CableCheck addresses this challenge with a flexible yet rigorous fact-checking methodology that prioritises delivering accurate and unbiased information.

Selecting Claims for Fact-Checking

The CableCheck team monitors the information landscape for misleading or outrightly false claims, in textual, visual or audio formats, that could be potentially harmful to the public. We avoid opinions and prioritise claims that have the potential to distort public opinion, affect public health and/or hurt public order.

We ensure our fact checks show varied interests and meet the following criteria:

Verifiability: Can the claim be objectively proven or disproven? Is it demonstrably false, misleading, or misinterpreted?

Newsworthiness: Who made the claim, and what are their motivations? Has this person or source spread misinformation previously? Is the claim gaining traction? How widespread is its reach?

Consequences: Is the claim significant enough to influence public opinion? What potential harm could the claim cause?

Spread: How many people are likely to be exposed to the claim? Does the source have a large audience, and is the claim easily shareable?

Beyond this, we also work on claims sent in by our readers and the general population across social media platforms. We, however, prioritise based on the criteria listed above.

Lost your password?