A Press Release Fact-Checking Checklist You Can Use on the Next Draft

The headline said nationwide. The body named two cities. The reporter noticed before the client did, and the correction cost more than the launch coverage earned. Releases rarely fail on the number someone checked. They fail on the word nobody treated as a claim.

So check claims, not sentences. List every assertion the release makes, including the ones hiding in adjectives, quotes and headlines. Open the passage behind each one and confirm it is about the same company, scope, period and unit. Record permission to publish separately from support, and recheck anything that changes before it goes out. Journalists expect you to have done this: 72% of journalists in Cision's 2025 State of the Media survey↗ said they worry about factual errors in AI-generated PR content¹.

Take this fictional launch sentence: "Our new service gives every customer faster installation through a nationwide network of certified partners." There is no number to check. There are still several things to establish: the service is new, all customers are eligible, installation is faster, the network covers the country, and the partners hold a relevant certification. A spelling check can leave every one of those questions unanswered.

A careful newsroom will test the release whatever you do. The Associated Press tells its journalists never to publish a news release in its original form↗: they judge the material's credibility, add information from other sources and write their own story². Your own review is the first of those checks and the only one you control.

Ten checks, run in this order on the exact version you plan to send. Each one is a decision you can record, so the next reviewer sees what was checked and what was not.

You need the exact release version, the documents behind each claim and a review sheet, kept together and labeled by purpose.

Begin with the deliverable: a release for a named audience, channel and intended publication date. Collect the task brief, factual documents and reference writing together, but label their purposes. A request to describe a launch as nationwide expresses an ambition for the copy. It does not establish geographic coverage. An earlier executive interview may help with voice without supporting this launch's facts.

When the facts sit inside an annual or sustainability report, pull the relevant passages into an evidence packet before drafting, so each claim can point to a page rather than to a 200-page file.

Create a compact review sheet beside the draft. Give each assertion an identifier, its exact wording, the supporting source and passage, the relevant period, the fact owner, the public-use decision and the review outcome. Keep source credibility and permission in separate fields. An authoritative internal document can establish a fact while remaining unavailable for public quotation or disclosure.

The same sheet works for longer copy. A 1,500-word byline simply has more entries, and checking a long bylined article mostly means keeping track of claims that build on one another across sections.

Five places carry most of the risk: the headline, sources that cover a different scope, quantities, executive quotes and timing.

One row per assertion, with the evidence held and a decision, as in this fictional installation launch.

Return to the fictional installation example. Suppose a dated operations note confirms that the service will launch in Jaipur and Pune. It describes trained partners but contains no certification record. A separate pilot report compares installation times for participating customers in Pune. These invented documents illustrate the review method; they are not evidence of an actual launch.

The coverage assertion needs narrower wording. The certification assertion needs a credential record or removal. The speed assertion needs the pilot conditions and comparison before you can judge a proposed claim. The pilot cannot support a promise to every customer. Ask the operations owner to confirm the effective launch date and the communications owner to confirm public clearance separately.

A possible revision, subject to those confirmations, is: "The installation service will launch in Jaipur and Pune on [confirmed date]." The shorter sentence makes fewer promises. If installation speed is central to the news, hold that part of the story until the team can explain the measured result accurately. Removing the claim may weaken the announcement; that is a real editorial decision to discuss with the client.

Usually not while it goes to journalists, but they can once the same text reaches consumers as marketing.

Most releases go to journalists, but the same text often turns up in a customer newsletter, a sponsored post or a paid placement. In the UK, CAP’s advice on non-broadcast advertising↗ treats a press release used as one would expect, sent to journalists or placed in a press section of a website, as outside the CAP Code; mailed to consumers, run in full in paid ad space or placed where it clearly targets consumers, its content would likely fall within the Code³.

Once the Code applies, marketers must hold documentary evidence for objective claims before the communication is distributed, and qualifications may clarify a claim but must not contradict it⁴. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission's policy statement on advertising substantiation↗ says advertisers and ad agencies need a reasonable basis for advertising claims before they are disseminated, and an express claim that tests or studies prove something needs at least the level of support it advertises⁵.

Ask at the start where the text will be used, and hold any copy that may be repurposed as marketing to the stricter standard from the first draft. This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the rules that apply to your organization with counsel.

Record a named outcome for it: revise, hold, remove or escalate. A gap with no decision is the one that gets published.

Use clear outcomes: supported as written, revision required, conflicting evidence, missing evidence or use restricted. Record a machine's proposed match separately from a human's verification decision. If a reviewer accepts a variation in wording, preserve both versions and explain why the meaning remains supported. A green mark without that explanation leaves the next editor guessing.

When sources disagree, keep both visible and ask the fact owner to resolve the difference. A newer upload could contain older information. While the conflict is open, remove or hold the dependent claim. If the claim carries the announcement's main news, the release owner needs to decide whether to delay the release itself.

Facts that a person has verified for this release are worth keeping for the next one. Maintaining the approved facts over time means the next draft starts from a record with a named owner and a date, instead of from last year's PDF.

Software can do the matching and flag the gaps. Deciding what is true enough to publish, and who may say it, stays with people.

General writing assistants draft quickly but do not show which passage supports which sentence, so the checking still happens by hand. That matches what PR teams report: in Muck Rack's State of AI in PR 2026↗, 98% said they always or often edit AI output, and 68% said proven accuracy would make them more comfortable trusting AI with PR work⁶. The comparison of AI tools for PR professionals sets out which tools check anything at all.

QuoteIt runs checks 2 to 7 as part of drafting. It writes from the documents you upload, places each claim beside the passage it came from and flags any claim no passage supports. Wording that gives a spokesperson a belief or a feeling is marked as proposed until that person approves it, and the facts inside it are still checked. Approvals are recorded against the version they covered, which is check 10. If you draft in a chat assistant today, the ChatGPT alternative for PR professionals shows where the two differ.

When every changed assertion has been rechecked on the version that will actually be sent, and the release owner has approved that version.

After revisions, recheck the assertions whose wording or context changed. Keep the final text, source references, unresolved restrictions and named decisions together. Client acceptance and authorization to publish may belong to different people, so record both where your process requires them; a clear agency-to-client handoff names each decision and who owns it. Check the actual export as well as the working document, including the contact block and any scheduled date.

The professional codes set the same expectation. The PRSA Code of Ethics↗ asks members to investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released on behalf of those they represent, and to act promptly to correct erroneous communications for which they are responsible⁷. The CIPR Code of Conduct↗ gives checking the reliability and accuracy of information before dissemination as an example of good public relations practice⁸.

If an error is discovered after distribution, preserve what was sent, identify affected recipients and work out the correction for each channel through the responsible communications owner. The review sheet gives that correction a traceable starting point.