How We Fact-Check
Our process is transparent, consistent and grounded in evidence. Every step — from claim selection to verdict — follows documented standards open to public scrutiny.
Our Process
Check Pacific applies the same rigorous methodology to every claim we investigate, regardless of who made it or which country it concerns.
Claim identification
We monitor social media platforms, news outlets and public statements across Pacific island nations. Claims are flagged by our journalists, submitted by readers, or identified through our partner network. We track claims in English and are working on accomodating other Pacific languages.
Prioritisation
Not every false claim can be investigated. We prioritise claims that are widely circulating, likely to cause harm and verifiable through available evidence. We do not fact-check opinions, satire, or predictions about future events.
Research and verification
Journalists consult primary sources: government records, scientific literature, official statistics and direct interviews with subject-matter experts. We contact the person or organisation that made the claim and give them an opportunity to provide evidence.
Editorial review
Every draft fact-check is reviewed by a senior editor before publication. The editor checks that the verdict is supported by the evidence cited, that sources are properly attributed, and that the reasoning is clear and fair.
Publication
Published fact-checks include the original claim, all sources used, the full reasoning behind the verdict, and the names of the journalists and editors involved. We do not publish anonymously.
Corrections
If we make an error, we correct it promptly and visibly. Corrections are noted at the top of the article with the date of the change. We do not silently edit published work. Verdicts can be updated if significant new evidence emerges.
Our Verdict Scale
We use five verdicts. Each has a precise definition. We do not use intermediate ratings or partial verdicts beyond those listed.
The claim is accurate and supported by strong, verifiable evidence from credible primary sources.
Example: A claim that a government passed a specific law, confirmed by official gazette records.
The core claim is accurate but contains minor inaccuracies, missing context, or slight exaggerations that do not fundamentally change its meaning.
Example: A statistic that is directionally correct but uses an outdated or slightly different figure.
The claim contains factual elements but is framed, selectively presented, or taken out of context in a way that creates a false impression.
Example: A real quote used out of context to imply the opposite of what was intended.
The claim is factually incorrect and contradicted by strong, verifiable evidence from credible primary sources.
Example: A claim that a specific event occurred when official records confirm it did not.
We were unable to confirm or deny the claim due to insufficient available evidence. This is not a verdict of truth or falsity — it means the evidence does not yet exist or is inaccessible.
Example: A claim about an event in a remote area where no independent reporting or official records are available.
Editorial Standards
Non-partisanship
We apply the same scrutiny to claims made by all political parties, governments and public figures. We do not selectively fact-check based on ideology or political affiliation.
Right of reply
Before publishing a fact-check that finds a claim to be false or misleading, we contact the person or organisation responsible and give them a reasonable opportunity to respond. Their response is included in the published article.
Source transparency
Every claim we make in a fact-check must be supported by a cited source. We do not rely on anonymous sources for verdicts. Where sources are confidential, we explain why and what corroborating evidence exists.
Separation of fact-checking and opinion
Our fact-checks are distinct from commentary or analysis. We do not publish opinion pieces under the Check Pacific masthead. Journalists who write fact-checks do not also write opinion content on the same topics.
IFCN Commitment
Check Pacific is committed to the principles of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a unit of the Poynter Institute. We follow the IFCN Code of Principles, which covers non-partisanship, transparency of sources, funding, organisation and corrections policy.
Learn about the IFCN Code of PrinciplesSubmit a Claim
Have you seen a claim circulating in the Pacific that you think should be investigated? We welcome tips from readers, journalists and community members across the region.