When an allegation goes viral, the original source can disappear behind screenshots, edits and repetitions. This is particularly dangerous in disputes involving religion, gender and public demonstrations.
Our verification method
We begin with the original claim and identify precisely what is being alleged. We then look for full-length footage, source photographs, dates, venues, the relevant organizer's statement and independent corroboration. A cropped placard, an unattributed quotation or a sensational headline is not sufficient evidence by itself.
Our verdict categories
Verified means strong evidence supports the specific claim. False means reliable evidence refutes it. Misleading means a true element is presented in a materially distorted way. Disputed means substantial competing evidence exists. Unverified means the available information is insufficient to reach a conclusion.
Corrections
If we make an error, we will revise the page, explain the correction and record meaningful changes. We will not quietly substitute a different claim for one that was challenged.
Disagreeing without intimidation
We may criticize a slogan, an argument or public behavior. We will not publish unnecessary personal details, invite harassment or make grave religious accusations on insufficient evidence.
Send us a tip: A submission channel will be enabled once our editorial inbox is configured. Until then, please use our published primary-source links to examine evidence directly.
Three different questions every fact-check must answer
Did an event happen? Establish dates, location and the identity of the source. A real photograph from a protest does not automatically validate every caption attached to it.
What was actually said? Transcribe words accurately and review the longer audio or video when available. Political or religious claims can be radically altered by a missing sentence or a misleading subtitle.
Who is responsible? An individual participant, a journalist, a social media commentator and an organizing body are not automatically interchangeable. Attribution matters especially when a claim could trigger harassment or threats.
A concrete example
AFP Fact Check investigated a widely circulated claim that a flag visible at an Aurat March was the flag of France. AFP concluded the flag belonged instead to Pakistan's Women Democratic Front. This specific finding corrects a specific accusation; it does not mean all material from all marches is accurate, and it does not settle moral disagreements about other issues.
The correct method is to treat every new claim on its own merits. If we cannot confidently identify an image or verify a quote, we should mark it unverified, not promote it as fact.
Our correction standard
We will distinguish the original assertion, the sources consulted, the evidence that supports or contradicts it and the remaining uncertainty. If a published page has a material error, we intend to correct it transparently. Readers should not be asked to accept our verdict on trust alone.
Case study: the doctored video in 2021
In March 2021, edited video clips falsely portrayed participants in Karachi as chanting blasphemous words. Organizers disputed the altered recording; independent reporting and fact-checkers reviewed the footage and identified manipulation. The stakes were unusually high because accusations of blasphemy can expose people to severe danger.
The editorial lesson is not that every claim made by organizers must be believed. It is that potentially dangerous accusations need a higher standard of evidence, not a lower one. Source clips, full context, and independent analysis are especially important where religion and personal safety are involved.
- Soch Fact Check, March 11, 2021
- The Express Tribune fact-check, March 11, 2021
- Dawn on organizers' response, March 12, 2021
Case study: an altered placard photograph
A photograph from Aurat March Multan in 2021 was later circulated with an explicit message that did not appear on the original placard. Soch Fact Check compared circulated and source images and concluded that the viral version was doctored. This is an example of why a real event photo can still carry a false caption or altered text.
A step-by-step evidence ladder
- Identify the narrow claim. “This exact slogan was said at this event” is testable; “the whole movement hates religion” is an interpretation that requires more than one clip.
- Find the primary record. Use original footage, dated photographs and the relevant organizer's official documents wherever possible.
- Check provenance. When and where was the first known copy uploaded? Does the picture predate the alleged event?
- Seek independent confirmation. Credible reporting and independent fact-checkers may corroborate or challenge a claim. Repeated reposts do not count as independent verification.
- Explain limitations. A partial clip may not show everything. If the record is incomplete, say so.
- Publish corrections visibly. Note the corrected statement, its date and the source of the correction.
The principle of proportionality
If an unverified claim names an identifiable person and could lead to threats, do not republish the material merely to attract readers. Use a careful description and links to credible fact-checks instead. Criticism of a published argument can be vigorous without spreading a dangerous fabrication.
Our fact-checks remain open to evidence. A verdict describes the available record at the time of review, not an infallible judgment about every person involved.