“5,000 customers complained.”
Out of six thousand customers, or five million? The number may be correct, but the missing total changes what it means.
Our standards
The same checks. Whoever wrote it.
The same questions we ask of every story apply to us. Here’s what we hold ourselves to, and what every contribution is held to too.
One rule sits under all seventeen: the evidence has to support what we actually say.
Revision 8 · updated September 27, 2026. See them in use: a review’s sources, scope, and corrections and changes →
-
01
Read the article, not just the headline.
Check the complete relevant text, its date and its version. Read later qualifications and responses, not just the passage being challenged. If essential evidence is unavailable, hold the finding or narrow it to what can actually be checked.
-
02
Show what the source actually says.
Match quotations, numbers, dates and comparisons. Read the passage behind each link and keep the conditions that change its meaning. A plausible link, search preview or previous AI answer does not count as verification.
-
03
Try to prove our criticism wrong.
Look for the strongest evidence in the original article’s favor, including its own qualifications. If that changes our conclusion, change the review. Agreement among AI systems is not independent evidence.
-
04
Explain why the missing fact matters.
Look beyond individual sentences. Identify evidence left out of the overall argument and explain how it changes what a reader should conclude. Extra background or an opposing opinion is not automatically a rebuttal.
-
05
Make sense before the reader knows the story.
Show the original headline early. Explain who or what the story concerns, what it asks readers to believe, and what evidence changes that picture. Headings, summaries and links should make sense without reading the original first.
-
06
Keep the headline within the evidence.
Our title, opening, preview card, browser panel and share text must not say more than the sources support. State the finding directly, with any qualification that changes its meaning. A caveat buried later cannot repair an overstated headline.
-
07
Separate facts, opinions and accusations.
Identify who makes a disputed claim and what evidence supports it. Label our own interpretations. Document relevant campaigns, relationships and interests without turning shared views or close timing into proof of coordination or hidden intent.
-
08
Rewrite the account, not the person.
Our rewrite must preserve uncomfortable facts, supported criticism and the original argument’s actual scope. It is not a defense of the subject or a claim to perfect objectivity. An accurate paragraph can stay unchanged. Do not invent an improvement just to fill the column.
-
09
Never silently change a quotation.
Exact quotations stay exact. Changed wording becomes a clearly attributed paraphrase, not new words inside someone else’s quotation marks. Added facts need sources. The rewrite must retain uncertainty and say when a detail is reported by the original article rather than independently checked.
-
10
Make the markings mean something.
Use distinct markings for a challenged claim, missing context and loaded wording. Keep the original readable. Explain a repeated insult or framing pattern once, with quiet links where helpful, rather than covering every sentence in warnings.
-
11
Identify people and interests accurately.
Distinguish the original reporter, quoted sources, subjects and our contributor. Explain what relevant organizations do and their documented viewpoint. Do not treat an affiliation as a rebuttal, or one reviewed article as a judgment about a whole career.
-
12
Check access and reuse separately.
Record how source material was obtained and review access terms, reproduction and privacy separately. Do not assume that a subscription or an annotated layout settles the right to republish. Keep unnecessary personal information out.
-
13
Resolve serious problems before publishing.
An unavailable key source, altered quotation, unsupported accusation or unresolved material error blocks the affected finding. Remove or narrow it and check every dependent headline and summary, or hold publication. At launch, an accountable editor approves the work; serious allegations and specialist questions receive appropriate review.
-
14
Make corrections visible everywhere they matter.
Keep sources, scope, dates and material changes available. Give readers and subjects a clear correction route. When a finding changes, update its rewrite, summaries, profile links and browser message too. Recheck the analysis when the original source changes.
-
15
Use ordinary words without losing the meaning.
Say what changes the story, then show why. Use ordinary words and concrete examples. A headline should state the finding, not tell an absent editor to supply one. Keep important qualifications; cut repetitive throat-clearing. Make the evidence engaging without making a stronger accusation.
-
16
Make the comparison easy to read and check.
Show the original beside our explanation or our rewrite, with sources close by. Keep the opening compact and let readers expand details. Controls must work on phones and with a keyboard, without losing the reader’s place. Label demonstrations honestly and never invent checks, activity or approvals.
-
17
Make the numbers checkable.
A count must say what was counted and link to the exact passages. A set of selected examples is not a percentage of false claims or a score for the writer. Do not dress up a judgment as a measurement.
Hypothetical examples
“What’s missing?” can change the whole story.
“She praised someone later exposed for misconduct.”
Did she speak before the misconduct was known? Without that date, a reader could mistake an earlier compliment for an endorsement of later revelations.
“Complaints doubled.”
If the customer base tripled, the complaint rate fell. Neither number proves that customers are happy. Both are needed to understand the change.
Access, copyright and source limitations
Authorized subscriptions and public pages may provide access to evidence. The legal basis for reproducing that evidence still needs its own review. Criticism can qualify as fair use, but an annotated format is not an automatic exemption.
A source limitation belongs with the claim it affects. It must not be hidden in an internal checklist or replaced by a confident-sounding rewrite.
Other standards worth consulting
The IFCN code sets out commitments on evidence, transparency and corrections. It is a useful reference, not a certification of Hit Piece.
Caught us out?
Tell us what we got wrong.
Bring the passage and the source. It gets the same seventeen checks, and the fix is published in the open.
Suggest a correction →Our record
Every change we’ve made, dated.
Each review ends with its sources, what we couldn’t check, and a list of corrections and changes.
See the corrections and changes →