Wochenbriefing’s fact‑checking policy is overseen by Vanessa Engels, Ansvarig för faktagranskning, and ultimately by Chefredaktör Benjamin Richter. The publication is owned and operated by Wochenbriefi Media Ltd., a private company registered in Gibraltar (company number C 92009, Malta Business Registry). Every article is drafted by a named writer, reviewed by an editor and fact‑checked before publication; artificial‑intelligence tools never replace human editorial judgement.
Who is responsible for fact‑checking at Wochenbriefing?
Vanessa Engels leads our fact‑checking unit and reports directly to the editor‑in‑chief. She supervises a dedicated team that verifies claims, sources and data before any article goes live.
The fact‑checking unit operates independently of the newsroom’s commissioning process. If a piece raises significant factual concerns, Vanessa Engels may delay publication until every claim is confirmed. Benjamin Richter retains final authority over editorial decisions, but the fact‑checking team’s findings are never overridden without a documented reason. The full team is listed on our team page.
What do we verify?
We verify every factual claim that appears in our journalism, including statistics, dates, quotations, names, legal citations and data from official reports. Opinions and analysis are clearly distinguished from verified statements.
Our reporters are trained to check original documents – such as government bills, court rulings, corporate filings and press releases – rather than relying on second‑hand reports. When we cite figures from economic institutes, polling organisations or academic studies, we confirm the methodology and sample size. Any claim that cannot be verified from a primary or reputable secondary source is either removed or explicitly labelled as unconfirmed. For a detailed breakdown of how we evaluate sources, see our Sources & Standards page.
How do we handle rumours and unverified claims?
We label rumours, speculative reports and unverified claims clearly – usually in the headline or first paragraph – and we never present them as established fact. Readers are told exactly what is known and what remains uncertain.
If we cover an allegation that is still under investigation (for example, a police inquiry or a parliamentary committee hearing), we say so explicitly. We avoid repeating misinformation without context, and we update the article as soon as verified information becomes available. Any article that relies on a rumour as a central element must be approved by the Standards Lead before publication.
What are our source hierarchies?
We rank sources by reliability: primary sources (official documents, court records, direct testimony) are preferred over secondary ones; named experts are favoured over anonymous ones; and multiple independent confirmations are required for controversial claims.
Our Sources & Standards page sets out a clear hierarchy that all journalists must follow. For example, a government budget document is ranked higher than a news agency round‑up, which is ranked higher than an unverified social‑media post. Anonymous sources are used only when the information is of clear public interest, the source has a credible reason to remain unnamed, and at least one editor knows the source’s identity. Every anonymous claim is accompanied by a rationale for its use.
How do we review sensitive articles?
Articles that touch on national security, public health, financial markets, ongoing legal proceedings or minority communities are flagged for review by the Standards Lead – Vanessa Engels or her deputy – before publication. The reviewer checks every factual statement against at least two independent sources.
Sensitive pieces also receive an additional layer of scrutiny from Benjamin Richter, the editor‑in‑chief. If the article includes claims that could cause significant harm if wrong, publication may be delayed until external experts have been consulted. The Editorial Policy page describes the full review process for high‑impact stories.
How can readers report errors?
Readers can send error reports and fact‑check suggestions to factcheck@wochenbriefing.de. Our fact‑checking unit acknowledges every submission within two working days and investigates promptly.
If a mistake is confirmed, we publish a correction in line with our Corrections Policy. We also log all reader‑reported errors internally to identify recurring issues in our processes. Anonymous tips are welcome, but we may ask for contact details to follow up on complex claims. For complaints that go beyond a factual error – such as bias or omission – please use our Complaints Procedure.
Our commitments
- We verify every factual claim against primary or authoritative secondary sources before publication.
- We label rumours, speculation and unverified information clearly and update articles as facts emerge.
- We maintain a strict source hierarchy and require multiple independent confirmations for sensitive or disputed claims.
- We investigate all reader‑reported errors within two working days and issue corrections openly when warranted.
- We never allow commercial relationships, affiliate links or advertiser pressure to influence our editorial conclusion or fact‑checking process.