How I Fact-Check My Own Stories: A Journalist's Internal Process

Every story I write gets fact-checked twice: once by my sources, and once by me.

One of the most important lessons I learned early in my career is that fact-checking isn’t just for editors. The best fact-checking happens before a story ever reaches a newsroom. As an investigative journalist, I’ve developed a rigorous internal process to verify my own work—because ultimately, I’m the last line of defense between misinformation and the public.

The Philosophy: Trust But Verify

When I was a young reporter at the Lincoln Journal Star, my editor taught me something I’ve never forgotten: “Your sources will lie to you by accident more often than they’ll lie to you on purpose.”

That lesson shaped my entire approach to fact-checking. I trust my sources, but I verify everything independently. Even when sources are honest, memories fade, details get confused, and context gets lost.

Here’s my internal fact-checking process—exactly how I verify my own stories before publication.

Step 1: The Document Foundation

Every story I write starts with documents. Not just interviews—documents. Public records, court filings, financial disclosures, emails, contracts. Documents don’t have agendas.

Before I write a single paragraph, I ask myself: Can I prove this with paperwork?

If the answer is no, I either find the documents or qualify the claim. A source’s memory might be wrong, but a signed contract rarely lies.

What I Look For in Documents

Original sources whenever possible (not summaries or secondhand accounts)
Primary dates — when was this actually created?
Signatures and stamps — does this look authentic?
Chain of custody — where has this document been? Who has seen it?

Step 2: The Three-Source Rule

For every significant claim in a story, I aim for three independent sources. They don’t all have to say the same thing—in fact, getting conflicting accounts can reveal important nuances.

Here’s how I think about source types:

Primary witnesses — people who were directly involved
Documentary evidence — records, recordings, photographs
Expert verification — professionals who can interpret the facts

If I have two sources that agree and one that contradicts, I dig deeper. The contradiction might be nothing—or it might be everything.

The Exception: When You Can’t Get Three Sources

Sometimes, particularly in investigative journalism, you simply can’t find three sources. A whistleblower might be the only person who knows about internal wrongdoing. A key witness might have died.

In those cases, I apply extra scrutiny:

Is the single source’s account internally consistent?
Does it match other available evidence?
Can I verify smaller details independently?
Am I comfortable with the level of certainty?

When I can’t meet my own standards, I either sit on the story until I can, or I publish with heavy qualification.

Step 3: The Reverse Interview

After I’ve written a story, I do something that might seem unusual: I interview myself.

Actually, what I do is pretend I’m a skeptic reading my own story for the first time. I ask:

What would make this story wrong? — Then I check those things.
What am I not seeing? — I look for gaps in my own reasoning.
What’s the simplest explanation? — Sometimes the obvious answer is right, but sometimes it’s a trap.
Who would be harmed if I’m wrong? — This keeps me humble.

I literally read my drafts out loud and try to poke holes in my own arguments. If I can’t poke holes, maybe I’m not trying hard enough.

Step 4: The Timeline Test

One of my favorite fact-checking techniques is building an independent timeline.

I take all the events in a story and plot them on a calendar. Then I ask: Does this timeline make sense?

Are there gaps that need explaining? Are there impossible simultaneities? Does the sequence of events logically lead from A to B to C?

A story that sounds true in narrative form often falls apart when you put it on a timeline. I’ve caught dozens of errors this way—events that couldn’t have happened in the order I described, or timeframes that don’t allow for the activities claimed.

Step 5: The Contact Test

Before publication, I always—always—give sources a chance to respond to my findings.

This isn’t just journalistic ethics (though it is that). It’s also a fact-checking opportunity. When a source reads what I’ve written, they might:

Point out factual errors I missed
Provide additional context I didn’t have
Clarify statements that I misunderstood
Sometimes… change their story entirely

That last one is actually valuable. If a source suddenly changes their account when confronted with documentation, that’s important information. It might mean they’re adjusting their story to match evidence—or it might mean I need to dig deeper.

Step 6: The Colleague Review

Whenever possible, I have a trusted colleague read my stories before publication. Fresh eyes catch things I’ve missed— typos, unclear passages, logical leaps, missing context.

I don’t just want someone to tell me my story is good. I want them to tell me:

Where they got confused
What they don’t believe
What questions they still have
What I missed

This external perspective is invaluable. After working on a story for months, I become too close to it. A colleague can see what I’ve become blind to.

Step 7: The Correction Readiness

Finally, I ask myself: If I’m wrong, will I be able to correct it quickly and transparently?

This isn’t about anticipating failure. It’s about being prepared to respond if it happens. Good journalists aren’t those who never make mistakes—those who make mistakes and handle them poorly are the ones who lose credibility.

Before publication, I make sure:

I know exactly how to reach all my sources
My notes are organized and accessible
I understand the correction policy of whatever publication I’m writing for
I’m prepared to issue a correction if needed

Common Fact-Checking Mistakes I See

After decades of doing this work, here are mistakes I see other journalists make:

1. Confirmation Bias

We all have it. We hear what supports our thesis and filter out what doesn’t. The cure is deliberate contrarianism—actively looking for evidence against your own story.

2. Source Loyalty

Sometimes we like our sources. We want to believe them. This leads to uncritical acceptance of their account. Remember: being a good person doesn’t make someone a reliable source.

3. The Loose Quote

Quoting someone accurately is different from quoting them correctly in context. I’ve seen stories that are technically accurate but wildly misleading because quotes were extracted from their context.

4. Assuming Expertise

Just because someone is an “expert” doesn’t mean they’re right about everything. Verify expert claims the same way you verify anyone else’s.

5. Rushing

Fact-checking takes time. When deadlines are tight, it’s tempting to cut corners. But a story that’s wrong isn’t a story worth publishing.

What Happens When I Find an Error

It happens. I’ll be checking a story and suddenly realize: this doesn’t add up. Here’s how I handle it:

Stop — Don’t keep writing. Address the error immediately.
Trace — Where did the error come from? Bad source? My misinterpretation? Missing document?
Fix — Correct the error in the story. If it’s fundamental, I might need to rewrite entire sections.
Learn — What can I do differently to catch this earlier?

Errors are embarrassing, but they’re also learning opportunities. Each mistake makes my fact-checking process stronger.

The Bottom Line

Fact-checking isn’t a chore—it’s the heart of what I do. Without verification, journalism is just storytelling. With verification, it becomes a public service.

I fact-check my own stories because I hold myself to the highest standard. The public deserves accurate information, and my sources deserve to have their stories told correctly.

The process takes time. It can be frustrating. But when I publish a story that I know is accurate—because I’ve done the work to verify it—there’s nothing else like it in journalism.

Matthew Bovee is an investigative journalist based in Lincoln, Nebraska. He has spent over two decades verifying facts and pursuing truth in public interest journalism.