Build the workflow around one rule: AI-generated text is a lead to check, not evidence to publish. For every factual claim, a human editor should be able to trace the wording to inspected source material, decide whether it is supported and approve the final version. The process also needs rules for confidential information, transformed copy, context and bias, and disclosure when AI has played a meaningful role.
Set the standard before using AI in production
Write down which tasks staff may use AI for, which are restricted, and who can approve a new use. Associated Press guidance includes bounded support tasks such as early research, document summarization, transcription, translation, headline suggestions, summaries, grammar, spelling and search optimization. OPB also identifies research, transcription and data analysis as possible support roles. Those examples are not permission to let a tool make the publication decision: AP and OPB retain human review and accountability.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Make the policy specific to each approved tool and task. A tool suitable for transcribing public meeting audio may not be approved for confidential source notes, and a summary tool should not be treated as a verifier. Reuters, ProPublica and OPB all emphasize limits around sensitive information, while Reuters also restricts uploading Reuters, partner and third-party content to unapproved external tools.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Protect reporting material at intake
Before staff paste, upload or connect material to an AI system, tell them what is allowed. Unless an approved secure system and policy explicitly permit it, keep unpublished reporting, source documents, notes, transcripts, off-the-record conversations and confidential newsroom information out of public AI tools. ProPublica and OPB state this protection directly; Reuters applies restrictions to certain content in external tools.
#1 Best Overall
Do not infer that a tool is safe for confidential work merely because it is available to staff or offers a business account. The newsroom should approve it for the specific data involved and establish what happens to submitted material. If those conditions are unknown, keep the material out.
Convert the draft into a claim list
Before polishing AI-assisted prose, break it into checkable assertions. A claim list makes verification concrete and prevents fluent writing from disguising unsupported details. Include names, dates, numbers, quotations, citations, causal statements, and claims about current rules, services or products. Separate those from analysis, advice and connective wording; they may need editorial scrutiny, but they are not all independently verifiable facts.
This claim-led step is a practical way to implement the independent verification required by Reuters and ProPublica, rather than a universal checklist prescribed by every newsroom. Treat AI-provided citations, source names and confidence scores as unverified until a person checks them.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsTrace every factual claim to inspected evidence
For each claim, record the exact wording proposed for publication, the underlying source, where the support appears, the source date, relevant geography and any caveat or conflict. Open and inspect the original source rather than trusting an AI-generated reference or summary. Reuters’ standards emphasize honest sourcing, context about sources and clarity about what remains unknown.
Use evidence appropriate to the claim. A source may establish that a person made a statement without proving the statement is true; a dated policy may not establish the current rule; and a figure may apply only to a particular region or period. Preserve those distinctions in the published wording.
Resolve gaps before approval
When evidence does not support a claim as written, correct it, narrow it, attribute the uncertainty or remove it. For a consequential disputed claim, seek independent evidence; do not let an AI-generated verdict stand in for editorial judgment.
- Supported: Keep the claim, with attribution or context where readers need it.
- Partly supported: Narrow the wording to what the source actually establishes.
- Uncertain or disputed: Explain the uncertainty, seek additional evidence or leave the claim out.
- Unsupported: Remove it rather than laundering it through polished prose.
Name the checker and the approving editor
Assign a person to check the claims and an editor to approve publication. Record both names with the assignment so accountability does not disappear when a draft moves between tools or teams. AP, Reuters, ProPublica, dpa and OPB place review and responsibility with journalists or editors.
One checker may be appropriate for a routine, low-risk item in a small team; a separate reviewer is prudent when claims are complex, consequential or difficult to verify. Full Fact describes a process in which a human writer checks AI-assisted fact checks and at least two senior team members review them. That is an example of one organization’s process, not a required headcount for every newsroom.
| Workflow | Best fit | Review design | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single checker with editor approval | Lower-risk work, straightforward claims or teams with limited staffing | A named checker verifies the claims; an editor reviews and approves the publication | Faster and less resource-intensive, but the same person may miss an error they introduced or overlooked |
| Separated reviewer workflow | Complex, high-impact or disputed claims; AI-assisted fact checks | A writer/checker prepares the work, then one or more independent senior reviewers examine it before approval | Provides more independent scrutiny but requires more staff and time |
Choose the separation level according to risk, available staff, claim complexity and deadline. AP’s general guidance calls for journalist review and editing without specifying the same reviewer count as Full Fact.
Recheck summaries, translations and other derivatives
Verification does not automatically carry over when copy changes form. A verified article turned into a FAQ, short summary, audio script, translated version or social post can lose a caveat, change emphasis or introduce a new claim. Review the derivative itself against the evidence and the approved original. dpa’s editorial rules explicitly call for review and factual verification of AI-assisted versions derived from an original contribution.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Review context, fairness and disclosure
Check more than literal accuracy. Ask whether the text omits material context, creates a misleading frame, reproduces bias or sounds more certain than the evidence allows. OPB calls for attention to missing context and misleading framing; Reuters says AI-created material remains subject to normal impartiality checks.
Recommended Free Tools
Decide whether AI played a material, meaningful or significant role under your publication’s written policy. When it did, explain the role to readers in a way that supplies useful context—for example, whether AI helped generate or transform material and what human review followed. AP, ProPublica and OPB address audience disclosure, but the threshold and wording vary by organization; there is no single threshold established across these policies.
Best Value
Keep an audit trail and corrections path
Store the claim list, source links or archived records, unresolved questions, checker identity, editor approval and a note of AI’s role with the assignment. Add corrections or updates to that record if the published item changes. This practical record supports accountability and makes it possible to explain later how a claim was checked and what AI did.
Fact-checking software can help teams find or organize claims, but it does not replace source inspection or human editorial judgment. Full Fact says its AI fact-checking software has been used by over 45 organisations in 30 countries; the source page does not state a publication year for that figure, so it should not be read as a dated measure of current adoption.
Review the policy as tools and practices change
Newsroom rules and AI capabilities evolve. Revisit approved tasks, data-handling rules and disclosure thresholds as tools change, and consult the organizations’ current policies before adopting their guidance as your own. The cited policies do not establish one universal reviewer count, disclosure threshold or best vendor for every newsroom.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Quick Recap
- Associated Press: AP updates newsroom standards for artificial intelligence
- Reuters: Reuters Journalistic Standards
- ProPublica: ProPublica’s Approach to AI
- dpa: AI rules for the editorial team
- Full Fact: How we use AI in our editorial work
- OPB: OPB Editorial AI Policy
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
