Pre-Publication Checklist for Journalists

A pre-publication check for journalists is not limited to typos and fact-checking.

It checks whether sources, witnesses, people involved, and people who provided materials can be traced backward from the article.

Contact paths, files, photos, quotations, article content, publication timing, and sharing history inside the newsroom. A single missed point can lead back to a source.

Right before publication, the question is not only, "Is this correct as an article?"

It is, "Who is put at risk because of this article?"

Check the scope of sources

First, identify who needs to be protected in this article.

People who do not appear directly in the article are also in scope.

Think through even the people who may be suspected after publication.

For source protection, it is not enough to look only at people whose names appear in the article. Information providers, witnesses, people who handed over materials, people who took photos at the scene, collaborators who do not appear in the article, family members, and colleagues can all be affected. After publication, organizations and people involved may look for "who knew."

Before publication, think concretely about who may be suspected when this article comes out. If the candidate pool is too small, review the body text, timing, and handling of materials.

Check contact paths and how materials were received

Next, check where traces of contact with sources remain.

Look at email, social media DMs, cloud shares, chats, call history, video meetings, and internal newsroom sharing.

If there is a problem, fixing only the article before publication is not enough.

Also review future contact methods and material storage.

Risk to a source does not arise only from the article body. Email, DMs, calls, cloud sharing, and internal newsroom chats leave evidence that contact happened. If an investigation follows publication, material access, sending times, cloud viewing, and call history may be compared.

If there is a problem with the contact path, move future contact to a safer method before publication. However, traces that already remain do not disappear, so review the article's specificity and publication timing as well.

Check files and materials

For materials that will be published, check both content and metadata.

Even for edited materials, check whether original files or alternate cuts remain in the publication location.

When checking materials, look not only at publication copies but also at the production process. Check whether original images, editing projects, alternate cuts, unedited audio, subtitle files, thumbnails, or original files in the cloud remain. Even if the public page contains an edited version, risk remains if the original file remains in the same directory or shared folder.

Materials are worth checking with more than one person. Photographers may be used to the background and miss risky visible details. However, adding reviewers also expands the sharing scope, so involve only the people who are needed.

Read the article body from a backward-inference perspective

Reread the body text through the eyes of someone trying to find the source.

Check whether department names, job titles, timelines, quotations, internal terms, photo captions, or types of materials narrow the candidate pool.

Generalize information when necessary.

Keep the core facts while removing details that only lead back to the source.

From a backward-inference perspective, repeatedly ask, "How many people know this information?" Statements from small meetings, internal terms from a specific department, wording from the latest version of a document, the angle of a scene, and fine-grained timelines narrow the candidate pool. Specificity matters in journalism, but pay attention to the direction of that specificity.

Keep the specificity readers need to understand the story. Remove specificity that only leads back to the source. This editorial judgment is central to source protection.

Check publication timing

Finally, check the publication timing.

If article publication is too close to an internal event, meeting, notice, audit, disciplinary action, accident, or material update, the source may be suspected.

Post-publication social media promotion and additions are also part of source protection.

Be careful with updates after publication. Information that was generalized in the first version may be written in more detail in an update. Social media promotion may reveal a more specific place or time than the article body. When publishing follow-up stories after a breaking report, check whether they add information that leads back to the source.

Decide when to stop before publication

If a pre-publication check finds a serious risk, you may need to decide not to publish as-is. A source is narrowed down to one person. The origin of the material is too narrow. The publication timing is too close to an internal event. The metadata check for materials is not complete. In these cases, options include delaying publication, adjusting wording, doing additional checks, or consulting a specialist.

The purpose of a pre-publication check is to consider the value of the article and the safety of sources at the same time.

Record the check results

In a pre-publication check, briefly record what was checked and what was adjusted. Keeping a record of who checked what, which materials were inspected, what information was removed, and why something was left in place makes it easier to judge the situation if a problem arises after publication.

However, the record itself also contains source information. Do not place it in a cloud account tied to a real name or in a broad newsroom share. Manage it somewhere only the necessary people can see. Check records are meant to support source protection. They must not become a new leak source.

Summary

A pre-publication check for journalists looks at sources, contact paths, materials, photos, audio, article text, and publication timing.

Being correct as an article is not enough.

Look at who may be suspected and who may be put at risk after publication.

Backward inference from the article body is especially easy to miss.

Before publication, after limiting the scope to what is necessary, it can help to have someone who does not know the reporting process review the piece. They are more likely to notice risky details.

Related tools

Related articles