Information Press publishes California-focused news, explainers, analysis, guides, comparisons, and other editorial content about government, housing, transportation, business, finance, healthcare, climate, education, technology, and consumer affairs. This policy explains how we assess factual claims, evaluate sources, handle uncertainty, and respond when new evidence calls for a correction.
Fact-checking is a process of proportionate verification, not a claim that every article is infallible. The importance of a statement, the reliability of the underlying evidence, the sensitivity of the subject, and the consequences of getting it wrong all affect how much review is appropriate.
What Needs Verification
We aim to check significant factual assertions before publication, including names, dates, geographic locations, official titles, quotations, public policy statements, laws, economic data, prices, eligibility criteria, scientific claims, and descriptions of real people or organizations. Headlines, charts, captions, and editorial summaries must not contradict or materially overstate the underlying reporting. Verification is most useful when it addresses the part of a statement on which a reader may act or form an important conclusion. A correct quotation, for example, may still mislead if its original context is omitted.
Articles that explain a specific policy should distinguish a proposal from an enacted rule; identify the jurisdiction and relevant effective date; and avoid implying that one city's regulation applies to all of California. Comparative claims such as “highest,” “lowest,” “cheapest,” and “best” require an identifiable scope, appropriate criteria, and defensible evidence.
How We Select and Evaluate Sources
We generally prefer sources that can provide direct support for the specific claim. Examples include official government publications, laws and regulations, regulatory filings, court documents, public datasets, original peer-reviewed research, and attributable statements from responsible agencies or organizations. Source authority is specific to the question at hand: an agency may establish its own rule, an original study may establish what its researchers measured, and neither necessarily answers every wider interpretation attached to those facts.
Direct sources still require scrutiny. An agency statement may document that the agency made a claim without independently proving every underlying conclusion. Company pricing pages can support published prices, but rates and conditions may vary by state, applicant, product configuration, or date. Research results need attention to methodology, population, and study limitations.
Credible secondary reporting can supply useful background. When important facts are available only through another outlet, we should attribute the outlet and avoid presenting its work as independently obtained. Multiple articles repeating the same original report do not count as independent confirmations.
Verification Workflow
-
Define the factual questions
Before publication, identify which claims the reader is expected to rely upon: what happened, who decided it, when it takes effect, where it applies, how numbers were calculated, and which risks or exceptions matter. Separate established facts from predictions, allegations, opinions, and interpretations.
The goal is to identify exactly which part of a claim has direct documentary support and which part remains interpretation, estimate, or uncertainty. The final wording should not be more certain than the evidence permits. -
Locate relevant evidence
Seek primary documentation and other reliable sources relevant to those questions. Record enough context to distinguish the source publication date from the date of an event or policy. Where online records may change, note the date or version used when appropriate.
-
Check details and attribution
Compare names, dates, figures, units, links, and quoted language with the underlying material. Verify that a paraphrase does not change the source's meaning and that descriptions of people or organizations do not imply unsupported qualifications or misconduct.
-
Assess conflicts and missing context
Check whether the source has an interest in the result, whether the sample or data set is limited, whether competing reliable evidence exists, and whether a relevant response is missing. Promotional material and press releases may start research but are not self-validating proof.
-
Review sensitive assertions
Apply additional caution to financial, health, legal, housing, safety, and reputational claims. Verify relevant regulators, effective dates, definitions, and official guidance. Potential harm from an error affects the degree of scrutiny needed.
-
Human editorial decision
Responsible human editorial oversight determines whether the available evidence is sufficient, a claim needs qualification, more research is necessary, or publication should be delayed or declined. Fact-checking is not automatically delegated to software .
Claim-Level Checks
Quotes, Interviews, and Statements
Quotations should accurately reflect real statements and their context. We do not invent quotes, fabricate interviews, or attribute statements to individuals who did not make them. When quoting a written report or public statement, attribution should identify its source rather than imply an exclusive interview. Numerical comparisons should preserve the time period, units, population, and other qualifiers that affect their meaning. Readers should not be left with an apparently precise figure whose basis is unclear.
Direct expert commentary, when used, should come from identifiable people with relevant qualifications that can reasonably be assessed. Information Press does not invent professional degrees, previous employers, sources, or reporting experience for its Editors. A public source's statement may be newsworthy, but its accuracy may still require independent examination.
Statistics, Comparisons, and Numbers
Numerical reporting requires attention to sample size, units, denominators, dates, inflation adjustment, geography, definitions, and revisions. A difference between annual and monthly figures, statewide and municipal averages, or nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars can materially change an article's meaning.
Graphs should not exaggerate change through distorted axes or selective time windows. If data are preliminary, modeled, estimated, or revised, we should say so when it matters. Calculations should be checked against their source values, and a ranking methodology should explain any meaningful weighting used.
We do not claim that a product or service was independently tested merely because public data were compared. Reviews and rankings should be transparent about what was actually evaluated. See our Rankings and Reviews Methodology .
Developing Stories and Uncertainty
Some reports develop faster than all relevant facts can be confirmed. When coverage is justified before full certainty is available, it should clearly identify what is known, what remains unconfirmed, and which authority or source is responsible for a particular statement. Preliminary casualty figures, evacuation guidance, lawsuits, and economic estimates are examples where timing and qualification matter.
We do not label speculation as confirmation or infer that an allegation is true because it has attracted public attention. If significant evidence conflicts, we may describe the conflict, seek additional documentation, or withhold a firm conclusion. New information can require a later update.
Higher-Risk Claims and Sources
Health, Law, Finance, and Safety
Some coverage can influence important life decisions. For healthcare, medical evidence and relevant public authorities deserve particular weight; we do not issue individual diagnoses or personalized treatment instructions. For legal and housing matters, rules must be placed in the correct jurisdiction and timeframe. For finance and insurance, readers need relevant fees, risk, eligibility requirements, and a clear distinction between general information and individual advice. Extra caution also means recognizing when an accurate general statement may not apply to a particular person, jurisdiction, financial product, or emergency. Material limitations deserve visibility alongside the headline conclusion.
Emergency reporting - especially about California wildfires, evacuation orders, or public-safety threats - should prioritize current information from responsible agencies. Outdated guidance must not be passed off as live instructions. We do not guarantee legal outcomes, investment returns, health results, or safety outcomes.
Information Press content is informational and not personalized medical, legal, tax, financial, investment, mental health, safety, or other professional advice . Readers should check official requirements and consult qualified professionals where their specific circumstances call for them.
Confidential Sources and Corroboration
Information Press normally relies on identifiable sources. Unnamed sources are considered rarely , and only for important information where the reason for anonymity is justified, the source's identity is known to a responsible human editorial reviewer, and suitable checks can be performed.
Anonymous sourcing does not justify publishing rumors, promotional assertions, or damaging allegations without reliable support. Significant single-source anonymous allegations are avoided, especially in legal, financial, health, safety, or reputational matters. When a confidential source is used, the article should provide meaningful context without exposing agreed protected details. See our Unnamed Sources Policy .
Commercial Claims and Conflicts
We do not allow advertisers or proposed partners to determine whether factual claims pass editorial review. The use of Google AdSense is separate from editorial verification. We do not currently accept paid editorial reviews, sponsored articles, affiliate marketing, or purchased ranking positions. Paid visibility does not determine editorial ranking position.
A company's paid relationship, access to products, or disagreement with a review does not exempt its assertions from checking. Material financial or professional interests relevant to a source should be considered and disclosed when necessary. A paid advertisement is not independent evidence of a product's quality or safety.
Images and Illustrative Claims
Images can imply factual claims even when the text does not. Documentary photos should reflect the event, person, and period indicated. Generic or illustrative material must not be captioned as eyewitness evidence; inappropriate cropping or manipulation must not alter factual meaning. Photo credits and rights should be respected.
Information Press permits AI-generated illustrations only . Synthetic images must not be presented as photos of actual events, emergencies, crimes, government actions, or other documentary situations. Labels should clarify their nature where the distinction matters. We do not use AI to write articles, generate drafts, summarize or translate sources, or monitor news; AI imagery is never evidence that an event occurred. See AI Use Policy .
When Evidence Is Insufficient
When important facts cannot be verified, we may qualify the claim, omit it, seek further evidence, identify it as an allegation, or decide not to publish. We should not fill an evidentiary gap with fabricated citations, guessed numbers, invented experts, or confident wording that overstates what sources establish. The absence of confirmation should not be presented as proof that a claim is false, just as repeated assertions do not make it true. Clear attribution and an honest account of uncertainty are preferable to unsupported certainty.
The existence of a URL does not guarantee that a linked document supports a quoted conclusion. Sources may change or disappear, and readers may identify discrepancies. We should review credible concerns rather than assume an earlier source check was conclusive.
After Publication: Corrections and Reader Questions
Corrections, Clarifications, and Updates
After publication, credible reports of error may trigger renewed examination of documents, sources, and article wording. Corrections address verified mistakes; clarifications resolve materially ambiguous descriptions; updates incorporate subsequent developments. Significant changes may carry explanatory notes; minor typography or style fixes generally need not. A later official update can change the present situation without making the original, time-specific report inaccurate. The distinction between a correction and a subsequent development should be explained when relevant.
To report a suspected error, email corrections@informationpress.net with the article URL, specific statement, reason for concern, and reliable supporting evidence. Editorial disputes are assessed by facts, not commercial pressure or demands for favorable treatment. Details appear in our Corrections Policy .
Reader Questions and Accountability
Research documents, expert feedback, corrections, and reasoned questions can help identify omissions and improve coverage. General editorial inquiries go to earthday@informationpress.net . We cannot promise individual replies or the publication of every submission.
Information Press remains responsible for verification and publication decisions. Michael Bennett serves as Co-Founder, while Jasmine Brooks and Ryan O'Connor serve as Editors within the publication's editorial standards. Important factual claims require appropriate sources and review.