Home › Tools
UK Journalist Tools & Calculators
51 free, client-side tools for UK journalists across FOI workflow, editorial and legal checks, freelance business, and source safety. No signup, no AI cost, no data sent anywhere.
Last reviewed: Next review due:
FOI Workflow
5 toolsCalculate FOI deadlines, draft requests for any UK authority type, appeal refusals using the right exemption, escalate to the ICO, and pick between FOIA and the Environmental Information Regulations.
FOI Deadline Calculator
Calculate your 20-working-day deadline under section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Enter the date you sent the request and this tool returns the statutory deadline, a 15-day reminder, and a chase date — plus a ready-to-send follow-up email.
The clock starts the day after the authority receives your request (or the day you send it if sent electronically and received during business hours).
Statutory Deadline (20 working days)
Friday, 11 September 2026
15-day reminder (5 days before deadline)
Friday, 4 September 2026
Chase the authority if you haven't heard anything.
21st working-day chase (1 day after deadline)
Monday, 14 September 2026
Deadline has passed — send follow-up email below.
FOI Request Builder
Generate a formal Freedom of Information Act 2000 request letter, tailored to the type of public authority. Fill in the details and copy or print the ready-to-send letter.
Tip: WhatDoTheyKnow.com publishes requests and responses — great for researching how similar requests were handled and following up on published data.
FOI Appeal Builder
Generate an internal review request after a Freedom of Information refusal. An internal review is required before you can complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). Fill in the details and copy or print the letter.
Authority claims the request would cost over £600 (central government) or £450 (other public bodies) to process. Check if the request can be narrowed to bring it within the cost limit.
ICO Complaint Builder
Generate a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) after an internal review fails to resolve your FOI dispute. You must complete an internal review before the ICO will investigate. Fill in the details, tick the documents you are enclosing, then copy or print.
Evidence checklist — tick documents you have ready to enclose
Recent ICO decision notices (FOIA)
as of 2026-08-13How the Information Commissioner has recently ruled on Freedom of Information Act complaints — the public authority, the FOIA section(s) engaged, and whether the complaint was upheld. A useful gauge of what the ICO expects and where authorities most often fall short (section 10, the 20‑working‑day deadline, recurs often).
- Chief Constable Kent PoliceFOI 30(1): Not upheld
The complainant made two requests for information relating to a police investigation concerning a fatal fire at a specified address. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent Police was entitled to rely on section 30(1)(a) of FOIA to withhold the requested information.
Police and criminal justice · 7 August 2026 · IC-402582-N0Z9 - Ministry of Justice (MoJ)FOI 10: Upheld
A public authority will breach section 10 of FOIA if it fails to respond to a request within 20 working days. Based on evidence available to the Commissioner, by the date of this notice the public authority has not issued a substantive response to this request.
Central government · 7 August 2026 · IC-533364-V7C0 - The National ArchivesFOI 10: Upheld, FOI 41: Not upheld
The complainant has requested a copy of their late father’s service records. The National Archives (TNA) disclosed some of the records but relied on section 41 of FOIA (information provided in confidence) to redact medical information.
Central government · 7 August 2026 · IC-426830-T2W9 - Kent County CouncilFOI 10: Upheld
The complainant requested information from Kent County Council about Supported Living Schemes. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA.
Local government · 7 August 2026 · IC-533696-N5Q4 - London Borough of SouthwarkFOI 10: Upheld
The complainant requested information from London Borough of Southwark relating to traffic conventions. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA.
Local government · 7 August 2026 · IC-530563-J7T6 - Westminster City CouncilFOI 1: Upheld, FOI 40(2): Not upheld, FOI 41: Not upheld
The complainant requested information about a named individual, including correspondence, notes, recordings and CCTV footage. Westminster City Council withheld some information under sections 40(2) and 41 of FOIA and said that some information was not held.
Local government · 7 August 2026 · IC-474818-C4H6 - The University of ManchesterFOI 10: Upheld
The complainant requested information from the University of Manchester relating to membership of an All-Party Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached sec
Education · 7 August 2026 · IC-533872-V8D3 - Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory AgencyFOI 1: Not upheld, FOI 40: Not upheld
The complainant requested information relating to the use of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) stimulators. The MHRA confirmed information was held but determined it could not be provided as it was personal data under section 40(1) and 40(2) FOIA.
Health, Regulators · 6 August 2026 · IC-412648-Y4J6 - South Yorkshire Combined Mayoral AuthorityFOI 10: Upheld
The complainant requested information from South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority relating to the South Yorkshire People’s Network. The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of FOIA.
South Yorkshire Combined Mayoral Authority · 6 August 2026 · IC-530523-B4Y3 - Ministry of Justice (MoJ)FOI 40: Not upheld
The complainant has requested information about the number of youths on remand. The Ministry of Justice (“MoJ”) relied on section 40(2) (personal information) of FOIA to withhold some of the requested information.
Central government · 6 August 2026 · IC-440533-J5M2 - Maritime and Coastguard AgencyFOI 31(1)(a): Not upheld
The Commissioner does not require further steps, as a result of this decision notice. Back to top Print this page For the public Official information Nuisance calls For organisations UK GDPR guidance and resources Freedom of information EIR and access to information Direct marketing Advice and servi
Central government · 5 August 2026 · IC-418546-S2Z6 - Chief Constable Commissioner for the Metropolis (Metropolitan Police Service)FOI 12: Not upheld, FOI 16: Not upheld
The complainant has requested information about offences mentioning “Grok” from the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”). The MPS initially advised that the request was vexatious on the grounds of burden, citing section 14(1) (Vexatious requests) of FOIA.
Police and criminal justice · 5 August 2026 · IC-476050-B3T1
Source: ICO decision notices · retrieved 2026-08-13· a rolling sample of FOIA notices; read each in full for the Commissioner’s reasoning.
EIR vs FOI Selector
Should you make your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) or the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)?
The EIR applies whenever information is ‘environmental’ in nature — and crucially, it covers private companies carrying out public functions related to the environment (e.g. water companies, energy utilities), which FOIA does not. Answer the questions below to find out which regime applies to your request.
Does the information relate to the state of the environment (air, water, soil, biodiversity, landscape, or protected sites)?
Find your patch
Enter any UK postcode to find the public bodies that cover it — the starting point for local reporting and FOI.
Editorial & Legal
15 toolsPre-publication legal checks (defamation, contempt, reporting restrictions), public-interest documentation, right-of-reply emails, correction generators, AI disclosure recommendations, headline checker, word counter and byline generator. None of these are legal advice — see disclaimer.
Defamation Risk Checklist
Answer all 10 questions to assess your defamation risk under the Defamation Act 2013.
Q1 — Identification
Is anyone identifiable from the publication (named OR identifiable by context, role, photo)?
Q2 — Defamatory meaning
Could a reasonable reader think less of them as a result?
Q3 — Serious harm
Is the harm to their reputation likely to be serious (or for companies: serious financial loss)?
Q4 — Truth (substantial truth)
Can you prove the substance of what you say is true with documentary or testimonial evidence?
Q5 — Honest opinion
If it's opinion, is it clearly opinion (not stated as fact), based on facts stated/referenced, and one a reasonable person could hold?
Q6 — Public interest defence (s.4)
Is publication in the public interest AND did you reasonably believe so at time of publication?
Q7 — Privilege
Does absolute or qualified privilege apply (court report, parliamentary, regulatory bodies)?
Q8 — Right of reply
Have you put allegations to the subject in advance with a reasonable deadline?
Q9 — Evidence file
Do you have a documented evidence file (notes, recordings, documents) you could produce in court?
Q10 — Legal read
Has a qualified media lawyer reviewed (recommended for serious-harm allegations)?
Defamation Risk Score
Answer these questions about your story to get an indicative defamation risk score, referencing the Defamation Act 2013.
Answer all questions above to see your risk indicator.
Contempt of Court Checker
Answer all 10 questions to assess your contempt risk under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
1.Has anyone been arrested without charge in connection with the story?
2.Has anyone been charged with an offence in this story?
3.Has a warrant been issued for someone in this story?
4.Has a summons been issued?
5.Is the matter set for jury trial?
6.Are you reporting previous convictions of an accused before trial?
7.Are you reporting confessions, alleged confessions, or "off-the-record" admissions?
8.Are you running identification photographs of an accused where ID is in issue?
9.Is there a Section 4(2) postponement order, Section 11 anonymity order or reporting restriction?
10.Are you commenting on the credibility of witnesses or the strength of the case?
Contempt Timeline Tracker
Track active-proceedings status for cases you are covering, and get a strict-liability window warning under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.2. Saved locally in your browser only.
No cases tracked yet. Add a case above to see its active-proceedings status.
Reporting Restrictions Checklist
Answer yes or no to identify applicable UK court reporting restrictions before publication.
1.Are any participants under 18 (youth court — automatic s.49 anonymity)?
Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.49
2.Is the case in adult court but you want to identify a juvenile victim/witness? (s.45 YJCEA discretionary order)
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s.45
3.Is it a sexual offence — alleged victim has lifetime anonymity (s.1 SOA 1992)?
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, s.1
4.Is the case in the Family Court? (s.97 Children Act 1989)
Children Act 1989, s.97; Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.27.11
5.Has the judge made a Section 4(2) postponement order (delay publication of certain matter until trial ends)?
Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.4(2)
6.Has the judge made a Section 11 anonymity order (e.g. blackmail victims, national security)?
Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.11
7.Are special measures in place for vulnerable witnesses (screens, video link)?
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, ss.23–30
8.Is there a derogatory mitigation order (s.58 CJA 1996)?
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.58
9.Is the trial subject to a reporting restriction the court has made privately (check court list)?
Various — check court listing
10.Are you in a youth court where adult co-accused are tried — section 49 may still apply to youth?
Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.49 (as extended)
Reporting Restriction Checker
Select the court, case type and stage of proceedings to see which UK reporting restrictions are likely to apply, with the relevant statute.
Select all three options above to see applicable reporting restrictions.
Court Active-Proceedings Calculator
Work out when criminal proceedings became “active” for strict-liability contempt purposes under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and when that active period is likely to end.
Complete the fields above to calculate the active-proceedings window.
Can I Name Them? Decision Engine
Enter details of the person you want to name, the court context, and any orders — get the applicable UK reporting-restriction rules with statute citations.
Select all five options above to see whether you can name this person.
General guidance based on statute and code positions. Always take specialist legal advice for high-risk stories. See /disclaimer.
IPSO Clause Selector
Pick the editorial situation you are dealing with to see which clause(s) of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice are most likely to apply, what each requires, and where to read more.
Select a situation above to see the relevant clause(s).
Clause summaries are paraphrased from the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice for navigation only. Always rely on the current Code text and take editorial-legal advice on difficult cases. See /disclaimer.
Recent IPSO rulings
as of 2026-08-13How IPSO has recently applied the Editors’ Code — each ruling shows the outcome it reached and the clause(s) engaged. Useful for seeing what a complaint under each clause looks like in practice.
- Moshelian v The NationalNo breach - after investigationClause 1 (Accuracy) · 13 August 2026 · 06589-25
- Dentskevich v Jersey Evening PostNo breach - after investigationClause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) · 13 August 2026 · 06576-25
- Williams-Key v express.co.ukNo breach - after investigationClause 1 (Accuracy) · 13 August 2026 · 06528-25
- Bye v The Sunday TelegraphBreach - sanction: publication of correctionClause 1 (Accuracy) · 13 August 2026 · 05946-25
- Daykin v Bournemouth EchoBreach - sanction: publication of correctionClause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment), Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief or shock) · 13 August 2026 · 03826-25
- Lewin v The SunNo breach - after investigationClause 1 (Accuracy) · 6 August 2026 · 00453-26
- Williams-Key v express.co.ukBreach - sanction: action as offered by publicationClause 1 (Accuracy) · 6 August 2026 · 06527-25
- Knight v The TimesNo breach - after investigationClause 1 (Accuracy) · 6 August 2026 · 06442-25
- Moshelian v The NationalNo breach - after investigationClause 1 (Accuracy) · 6 August 2026 · 06291-25
- Moshelian v The NationalBreach - sanction: publication of correctionClause 1 (Accuracy) · 6 August 2026 · 06430-25
Source: IPSO rulings · retrieved 2026-08-13· a rolling sample; read each ruling in full for the reasoning.
Ofcom Section Selector
Pick a broadcast situation to see which section of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code applies, what it governs, and who is able to complain. For licensed TV and radio (including the BBC’s broadcast output) — not the press.
Select a situation above to see the relevant Code section.
Section summaries are paraphrased from the Ofcom Broadcasting Code for navigation only. Always rely on the current Code text and take advice on difficult cases. See /disclaimer.
Notable Ofcom broadcast sanctions
as of 2026-08-13The serious end of Broadcasting Code enforcement — statutory sanctions (fines and, in the gravest cases, licence revocations) show where Ofcom draws the line on impartiality, harm and offence, and fairness.
- GB News Limited
Ofcom has imposed statutory sanctions on GB News Limited for breaching the special impartiality requirements in the programme People’s Forum: The Prime Minister broadcast on 12 February 2024.
- ANO TV Novosti
Ofcom has today revoked RT's licence to broadcast in the UK, with immediate effect.
- China Global Television Network
Ofcom has today withdrawn the licence for CGTN to broadcast in the UK, after its investigation concluded that the licence is wrongfully held by Star China Media Limited.
- Islam Channel Limited
Ofcom has imposed a £20,000 fine on Islam Channel Limited in relation to its service the Islam Channel for failing to comply with our broadcasting rules.
- BBC
Ofcom has imposed a sanction on the BBC after we found that a documentary programme breached broadcasting rules which require that factual programmes must not materially mislead the audience
- Khalsa Television Limited
Ofcom has imposed financial penalties of £20,000 and £30,000 on Khalsa Television Limited in relation to its service KTV for failing to comply with our broadcasting rules.
- Club TV Limited
Ofcom has imposed a £200,000 fine on Club TV Limited in relation to its service Peace TV Urdu for failing to comply with our broadcasting rules.
- 965 TV Limited
Ofcom has imposed a sanction on 965 TV Limited after our investigation found that it had failed to comply with our advertising rules on its Studio 66 TV service.
Source: Ofcom content sanctions & adjudications · retrieved 2026-08-13· a curated selection; see Ofcom for the full record.
Public Interest Test Builder
Build a documented public interest record for your editorial file. IPSO and NUJ both expect public interest decisions to be recorded in writing.
Public interest grounds * (select at least one)
Right of Reply Generator
Generate a professional request-for-comment letter. Putting allegations to the subject before publication is required by the IPSO Editors' Code (Clause 1) and the NUJ Code of Conduct.
Deadline: 5pm on Tuesday, 18 August 2026
Corrections Generator
Generate a corrections notice formatted for your CMS. For our full corrections policy, see the corrections page.
AI Disclosure Checklist
Determine whether you need to disclose AI use in your published work, and generate sample disclosure text. Guidance: NUJ AI guidance and IPSO position.
What was AI used for? (check all that apply)
Were facts independently verified by a human?
Is the published version primarily AI-generated content?
Ethics Decision Flowchart
Answer the questions below to check whether your story is ready for publication from an ethical and legal standpoint.
Question 1 of 8
Does your story involve private or personal information about an individual?
Word Counter
Paste or type your text below to see live word count, reading time and structure stats.
Paste your text above to see word count and reading time.
Headline Checker
Check your headline for length, structure, clickbait flags and IPSO accuracy requirements.
Enter a headline above to check it.
Freelance Business
15 toolsRate calculator, pitch generators (simple + advanced), printable invoices, late-payment escalation letters, kill-fee claims and letters, day-rate quotes, NUJ rate comparator, copyright licence fee estimator, byline generator, contact card maker, story budget tracker, expense deduction calculator and downloadable templates.
Freelance Rate Calculator
Estimate what to charge based on assignment type, publication tier and your experience level.
Select all three options above to see your estimated rate.
Pitch Email Generator
Fill in the details below to generate a professional pitch email you can copy and send.
Advanced Pitch Generator
Build a structured, professional pitch email with all the detail commissioning editors expect.
0/80 suggested
0/200
Invoice Generator
Fill in your details and line items, then print a professional A4 invoice or copy as plain text.
Your Details
Invoice Details
Client Details
Line Items
Payment due: 15 September 2026
Late Payment Calculator
Calculate statutory interest and compensation for overdue invoices under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.
Enter the invoice amount and number of days overdue to calculate interest.
Late Payment Letter Generator
Generate a professionally worded letter to chase overdue invoices — from polite reminder to final notice before legal action.
Kill Fee Calculator
Calculate what you are owed when a commission is killed and generate a claim email to send to the commissioning editor.
Kill Fee Letter Templater
Generate a professional kill-fee claim letter, with statutory interest referenced under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.
Day Rate Quote Calculator
Build a detailed quote with line-item breakdown and rights multiplier — then copy or print for your client.
Your Rates
Scope of Work
Multiplier: ×1 applied to subtotal
NUJ Rate vs Day Rate Comparator
Compare the NUJ Freelance Fees Guide recommended minimum against a typical UK market day-rate range for the same assignment.
Select an assignment type and outlet type to compare rates.
Copyright & Licence Fee Estimator
Estimate a rights-managed photo licence fee based on usage type, duration and outlet size.
Select all three options above to see an estimated fee range.
Byline Clarifier & Generator
Add authors with roles to generate a correctly formatted byline string.
Add author names and roles above, then click Generate.
Contact Card Maker
Build a journalist contact card and download it as a .vcf file or copy as plain text.
Fill in at least a name to generate the card.
Story Budget Calculator
Track weekly story assignments and spot reporter overallocation. Data is saved in your browser.
Reporter workload this week
Enter reporter names above to see workload.
Expense Deduction Calculator
Estimate your UK self-assessment deductible expenses and tax saving as a freelance journalist.
Home office method
Deductible expense breakdown
Estimated tax saving
Downloadable Templates
Click any template to view the full text. Use the Print button to save as PDF or print a hard copy.
Safety & Verification
9 toolsDocument risk before publication, audit source-protection practice, verify social media content with traffic-light confidence scoring, check password strength, run source verification checklists, use the advanced ethics flowchart and compare NCTJ training costs.
Story Risk Register
Document and rate risks across five categories before publication. Print and store with your story file.
Legal Risk
Defamation, contempt, copyright, data protection
Ethical Risk
Privacy, intrusion, public interest balance
Safety Risk
Physical, online abuse, source safety
Source Risk
Anonymity, reliability, motives
Reputational Risk
Corrections likelihood, criticism, financial
Source Protection Checklist
Answer Yes or No for each item. Every answer is required — this checklist demands commitment, not uncertainty.
1.Did I agree the level of anonymity in writing with the source (off-record / on-background / not-for-attribution / on-record)?
2.Are we communicating through an encrypted channel (Signal, ProtonMail, SecureDrop)?
3.Have I avoided naming the source in emails, calendar invites, or shared documents?
4.Have I stored notes (digital + paper) in a way the source cannot be identified by them alone?
5.Have I stripped metadata from any documents the source sent (e.g. via DocumentCloud or manual EXIF cleaning)?
6.Have I considered whether my device(s) are secure (full-disk encryption, strong passphrase, OS updated)?
7.Have I considered whether cloud backups or syncs (iCloud, Google Drive) could expose source material?
8.Have I considered whether the source's own digital footprint identifies them (their email metadata, badge logs, building access)?
9.Have I considered whether the source could be identified by exclusion ("only X people knew this") and discussed this with them?
10.Have I considered RIPA/IPA powers — police or state could demand my communications data?
11.Have I considered whether a Production Order could be made against me (PACE s.9, Sch.1) and where my notes physically sit?
12.Do I know the NUJ's source protection guidance and have a lawyer contact in case of legal pressure?
Source Verification Checklist
Work through all 12 questions before publishing. Answer “Yes” or “No” for each item. A strong source should score at least 10 out of 12.
1Have you contacted the source directly (not relying solely on third-party accounts)?
2Do you have written or recorded confirmation from the source?
3Have you cross-checked the source against Companies House, Land Registry, or another official register if relevant?
4Is the source identifiable (name, title, organisation) and have you verified their identity?
5Have you sought a second independent source to corroborate the key claim?
6Have you checked the source's track record for accuracy in previous statements?
7Have you given the subject of the story a proper right of reply?
8Are you confident the source has no undisclosed conflict of interest?
9Have you verified any documents provided by the source (checked provenance, metadata, format)?
10Have you checked whether any of the information is sub judice or subject to a reporting restriction?
11Have you consulted your publication's legal team or a media lawyer if there is any doubt?
12Would you be comfortable explaining your verification process in a published Editor's Note?
Password Strength Checker
Check how secure your password is against common attack patterns. No data is sent anywhere — all checks run in your browser.
Ethics Flowchart
A step-by-step ethical decision guide for UK journalists, referencing IPSO Editors' Code and the NUJ Code of Conduct.
Does the story involve a person who may be adversely affected?
NCTJ Training Provider Fee Comparison
A side-by-side breakdown of UK NCTJ-accredited course fees and exam costs across leading providers. Fees are approximate and verified as of June 2026.
| Provider | Location | Delivery | Course Fee | NCTJ Exams | Total Est. | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News Associates | London / Manchester | Full-time / Part-time / Online | £3,495 – £4,495 | Included | £3,495 – £4,495 | Fast-track options available; often ranked #1 NCTJ centre |
| Press Association Training | London (primarily) | Full-time / Online | £3,600 – £5,000 | Included | £3,600 – £5,000 | Industry-backed; strong broadcast pathway |
| City, University of London | London | Full-time (postgraduate) | £12,500 – £14,000 | Included | £12,500 – £14,000 | MA Journalism; prestigious; includes NCTJ fast-track |
| NMA Academy (National Media Academy) | Birmingham | Full-time / Apprenticeship | £2,800 – £4,200 | Included | £2,800 – £4,200 | Apprenticeship route available; good Midlands network |
| Lambeth College / NCTJ Direct | London / Online | Part-time / Online | £1,800 – £2,500 | £850 approx (separate) | £2,650 – £3,350 | Lower cost entry; exam fees billed separately by NCTJ |
Last reviewed: 13 June 2026. Fees are approximate and subject to change — always verify directly with the provider before applying.
FOI Cost Estimator
Estimate whether your Freedom of Information request is likely to exceed the statutory cost limit under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (£600 for central government, £450 for other public authorities, calculated at £25/hour).
Select all four options above to see your estimated cost outcome.
Byline Impact Tracker
Log every published byline to track your monthly output, outlet mix and portfolio growth. Data is saved in your browser only.
No bylines logged yet. Add your first one above.
Pitch Success Rate Calculator
Track every pitch you send and its outcome to see your acceptance rate, response times, and which editors and angles work best. Data is saved in your browser only.
No pitches logged yet. Add your first one above.
Source Verification Confidence Checker
Get a 0–100 confidence score based on source type, corroboration, and how many verification steps you've completed, plus a red/amber/green publication recommendation.
1Have you contacted the source directly (not relying solely on third-party accounts)?
2Do you have written or recorded confirmation from the source?
3Have you cross-checked the source against Companies House, Land Registry, or another official register if relevant?
4Is the source identifiable to you (name, title, organisation), even if not published?
5Have you sought a second independent source to corroborate the key claim?
6Have you checked the source's track record for accuracy in previous statements?
7Have you given the subject of the story a proper right of reply?
8Are you confident the source has no undisclosed conflict of interest?
9Have you verified any documents provided (checked provenance, metadata, format)?
10Have you checked whether any of the information is sub judice or subject to a reporting restriction?
Select source type, corroborating source count, and answer all 10 questions to see your confidence score.
Harassment Response Flowchart
A step-by-step guide for UK journalists facing harassment, abuse or threats connected to their work. Answer the questions below for tailored next steps.
Step 1 of 3
Quick Converters
Word Count to Read Time
Based on average reading speed of 238 wpm.
VAT Calculator
Calculate net to gross at UK standard 20% VAT.
Looking for guides as well as tools?
Every tool here is paired with explainer guides on the topic hubs.
Social Media Verification Checklist
Answer Yes or No for each verification step before using social media content in a story.
1.Have I traced the content to its original source (not a screenshot of a screenshot)?
2.Have I checked the account's history (created when, posting frequency, language patterns)?
3.Does the account have a verified blue tick or established credible footprint?
4.Have I cross-referenced the claim with a second independent source?
5.Have I run a reverse image search (Google Lens, TinEye, Yandex) on any images?
6.Have I checked timestamps against the claimed event time (and timezone)?
7.Have I geolocated images/video against known landmarks, signage, language?
8.Have I checked image metadata where available (EXIF — but note social platforms strip it)?
9.Have I checked video for editing signs (jumps, audio glitches, unnatural shadows)?
10.If the content is sensitive (atrocity, death, identifiable victims), have I assessed it ethically before publishing?
11.Do I have permission from the original poster, OR is the content clearly newsworthy enough to use under fair dealing?
12.Have I screen-captured the content with URL and timestamp visible (in case the post is deleted)?