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

TL;DR

-��Review each factual assertion, including implied comparisons and claims inside executive quotes.
-��Read the supporting passage in context and record its scope, date and permission for public use.
-��Resolve gaps against the exact release version, then obtain the required publication approval.

Consider 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.

For an agency account manager or an in-house communications editor, the useful unit of review is an assertion that can be supported or challenged. One sentence may need several review entries. Two sentences may share a claim when the second says "this improvement" and depends on what the first actually described. Keep the surrounding copy visible while you work.

Assemble the release and its evidence together

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.

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.

Work through these checks before asking for sign-off

Read the headline as a standalone statement

Check the headline, subheading, image caption and summary independently. If the body limits availability to selected cities, the headline needs compatible wording. Watch words such as first, only, largest, available and guaranteed. Ask what comparison, coverage or commitment each creates, and who can substantiate it. Removing a number from an unsupported claim does not resolve the underlying problem.

Match the source to the actual assertion

Open the cited page and inspect the surrounding paragraph, table headings and footnotes. Confirm that it concerns the same organization, service, audience and period. A document about a planned rollout cannot establish a completed rollout. A relevant search result or an attached PDF is a candidate source; record why its passage supports the wording before marking the assertion as checked.

Check quantities together with their definitions

For every quantity, retain the unit, denominator, time window and scope. Distinguish registered users from active customers, a pilot result from a general service promise, and an increase in percentage points from a percentage increase. Inspect the original table when extraction could have separated a value from its heading. Record any calculation so another reviewer can reproduce it.

Review quotes and causal language

An executive's approval of a quote does not establish every fact inside it. Check claims about customer demand, performance, market position and causes just as you would in the body. Words such as because, enables and delivers can add relationships that the source never tested. Keep the speaker's intended opinion distinguishable from statements about measured results or other people's experiences.

Check timing, disclosure and ownership

Confirm names, titles, contact details, launch status and any embargo with the responsible owner. Record when evidence applied, when it was reviewed and where its use was authorized. Prior approval for a private briefing does not automatically cover a public release. Assign unresolved items to someone who can answer them, with an agreed escalation route if that person is unavailable.

Claim review sheet: what each source permits

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.

Record a decision for every gap

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.

Close the review on the version that will leave the building

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. Check the actual export as well as the working document, including the contact block and any scheduled date.

If an error is discovered after distribution, preserve what was sent, identify affected recipients and arrange a correction through the responsible communications owner. The PRSA Code of Ethics asks its members to check the accuracy of information they release and to correct erroneous communications promptly. The review sheet gives that correction a traceable starting point.