Fact Checking Policy

autopye.com would make you aware of the care and caution that We take in ensuring the due accuracy of Our content, which is provided by Our Fact-Checking Policy.

Due accuracy in all content

The most important thing for any journalistic platform is the trust of its audience. Trust can be earned and, generally, maintained only through accurate, fair, and balanced reporting. This is the commitment We must keep in the most possible extent for due accuracy of Our all content. By ‘due accuracy’ We mean not only that accuracy has to be up-to-the-mark but also satisfactory in essence. Subject and nature of information; expectations of audience, etc., are all taken into consideration by Us while pursuing due accuracy. We strive to give the most accurate account corroborated by the direct stakeholders of the news in every single report. Investigate with skepticism, question assumptions, and challenge conventional wisdom. Areas of uncertainty will always exist, more so, Given our best efforts to resolve them. The required stringency would be different in fact-checking soft stories and hard ones. The sources required for a favorable story on NGOs would differ from those in an investigative story.

We adhere to the guidelines below to ensure due accuracy in Our contents:

We ensure that anything broadcast by Us is founded on reliable sources grounded by concrete and corroborated evidence. In case of absence of direct sources, We are mandated to attribute the stories to the platform from where it is sourced.

We strive to verify all claims or allegations or information attributed to public authorities – or from someone, who is known or believed to have other reasons than just giving an account of the truthfulness of the event – “Public authorities are broadly in different categories, most of which we can agree should not be viewed in and of themselves. We more than qualify and call-out such information, including claims or allegations, which we are unable to decode.” Our Pub.

By publishing information, we think it is correct, thus stand with it. So, if proven otherwise, we amend the news item/information as quickly as reasonable possible and duly inform Our readers with regard to the changes made in such news item/information.

Our audiences’ trust, therefore, is of utmost significance to Us. Therefore, it is Our endeavor not to intentionally mislead anyone and also not to twist any information or make any fabrication appear as though it were actually factual. Moreover, in cases where grave reality mistakes arise, we publicly acknowledge them and ensure the shortest possible time for correction in a clear and appropriate manner.

We ensure a fair opportunity is given for the public to report any inaccuracies or errors on Our Website by having the “Suggest A Correction” segment accessible at the end of all Our reportage presented and published on Our Website: https://autopye.com.

Basically, the core responsibility of Our journalists is to cover, write, and verify news/information/stories. To this indeed, Our stories undergo a multi-layered process which includes a robust internal fact-checking procedure where due diligence covers each item along with further review by one or more of Our editors. It is to be noted that the seniority level of editors who do their part in reviewing stories before publication on the Website differs according to various factors such as complexity and sensitivity of the issue as well as the time pressure.

In the event of an allegation, We will ensure to contact all the parties involved. We will then independently verify the information in question and the one that is given so as to achieve the most accurate result. Now onward all information will be sourced.

How Do We Source Information for Our Content?

We follow guidelines for the most accurate sourcing information: verifying all information with at least two sources; ensuring credibility of single-source information through corroboration with what the person is saying; seeking documentary evidence wherever possible instead of relying on human source alone; in case of surveys, it is our responsibility to provide how the information was collected and how the data were interpreted. Should there be chances of our data not leading to accurate information, we will let the inconsistencies be known as soon as possible possible, Aim and intent is first time accurate information instead of publicizing first and followed by any doubt whatsoever addressing it.

Make efforts to take and talk on record with the stakeholders of the information/news. Provide the rationale of not naming a source when using an anonymous source depending upon the circumstances to come to a way with such sources of providing readers with as much information as possible as to their reliability.

Share this information about sources with Our editors, so that editors – as well reporters – will perceive whether this piece of information is appropriate for use and the manner in which it will be used. The conversation between reporter and editor must be rendered into anonymous quotations.

Have brief conversations with sources regarding how to use the information given by them – especially those with not extensive experience interacting with the media. Clarify a source’s expectations of keeping information “off the record,” and/or “on background.” or other statuses as such because of differing meanings to different people.

Things actually allow the person to respond to reporting that might have a negative effect on them and explain to the audience the things We go through to seek response in cases where there is no answer from the source.

There exist multiple types of sources: pitifully ignored by widest public platforms and thus inconsequential are the reverse of those with numbing power and stature. When in doubt, one could call upon various senior resources or even the head of the autoFye’s newsroom to seek out a second opinion, if one is unable to do it oneself, to ensure that the correct piece of information is delivered to the oddest audience.

User-Generated Content

User-generated content poses challenges in itself. We don’t just assume anything that is shared with Us is true and verify the truth of such content reasonably depending on how we use it. We take into account whether the information from a member of a lobby group or someone who stands to gain from the story, rather than just an interested bystander. User-generated content is plainly labeled to identify it as such. User-generated content may be true or intelligible for another group of writers: It can therefore be said that it is open to manipulation. Further, We strive to check the following:

There are sources of information that appear to be reliable on the internet, but their accuracy may not always have been duly checked. Therefore, you may have reason to check as to who is running the site and/or confirm with either the individual or organization concerned that the material is relevant to the aforementioned.

To the greatest extent possible, the dividing line between fact and rumor should be carefully maintained. This isparticularly true, although not exclusively so, in the context of social media, where a distortion might be deliberate or otherwise but in which fact or rumor can spread like wildfire with minutes around the audience worldwide, whereas correction finds it very difficult indeed to achieve the same speed.

Evidence or facts that come from social media or other forms of internet output may require increased caution in verifying. We qualify and call-out all material that was not gathered by Us.