Abstract
This dissertation examines how contemporary newsrooms navigate the tension between the rapid dissemination of viral content and the fundamental journalistic imperative of verification. Through a comprehensive literature synthesis, this study analyses the structural, cultural, and economic factors that impede effective verification practices when user-generated content spreads across social media platforms at unprecedented speeds. The findings reveal that many newsrooms adopt a reactive posture, frequently amplifying unverified claims through hedging language whilst failing to implement systematic verification protocols. However, the research also identifies emerging strategies among progressive organisations, including the establishment of specialised fact-checking units that employ open-source intelligence tools and triage systems based on virality, checkability, and potential social impact. Cross-newsroom collaborative alliances have emerged, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, though resource constraints and cultural barriers limit their effectiveness. This dissertation concludes that whilst a growing layer of dedicated verification infrastructure exists, the dominant pattern remains one of post-hoc correction rather than pre-publication verification, presenting significant implications for journalistic credibility and public discourse.
Introduction
The contemporary media landscape presents an unprecedented challenge to traditional journalistic verification practices. Social media platforms have fundamentally transformed the velocity and volume of information circulation, creating an environment where viral content can reach millions of users within minutes, far outpacing the capacity of newsrooms to assess its veracity. This transformation has profound implications for the integrity of public discourse and the societal role of journalism as a trusted arbiter of factual information.
The relationship between speed and accuracy has long constituted a central tension in journalism. However, the digital age has intensified this conflict exponentially. Where traditional news cycles once afforded journalists hours or days to verify claims before publication, the real-time nature of social media creates immense pressure to publish immediately or risk irrelevance. This pressure operates within an economic context where audience metrics and engagement increasingly determine newsroom revenue, creating structural incentives that may compromise verification standards (Silverman, 2017).
The consequences of inadequate verification extend beyond individual news organisations to affect democratic processes and public health. The proliferation of misinformation during electoral campaigns and health crises demonstrates the tangible harms that can result when unverified claims achieve widespread circulation through journalistic amplification. The COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, highlighted the potentially lethal consequences of misinformation when public health guidance competes with viral falsehoods for audience attention (Luengo and García-Marín, 2020).
This topic matters academically because it illuminates fundamental questions about the evolving nature of journalism in digital environments and the adequacy of traditional professional norms in addressing novel challenges. Socially, understanding how newsrooms handle verification is essential for developing media literacy and informed citizenship. Practically, this research can inform the development of improved verification protocols, training programmes, and resource allocation within news organisations.
This dissertation synthesises existing scholarship to provide a comprehensive analysis of how newsrooms respond when viral content spreads faster than fact-checking processes can operate. By examining both the deficiencies in current practice and emerging strategies for addressing verification challenges, this study aims to contribute to both academic understanding and professional practice in journalism.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine and synthesise existing research on newsroom verification practices in the context of rapidly spreading viral content, identifying both systemic challenges and emergent solutions.
The specific objectives are as follows:
1. To analyse the structural, economic, and cultural factors that impede effective verification of viral content within contemporary newsrooms.
2. To examine the common practices and workarounds that newsrooms employ when confronted with the tension between publication speed and verification rigour.
3. To evaluate the effectiveness of specialised fact-checking units and their methodological approaches to verifying viral claims.
4. To assess the role and limitations of collaborative verification initiatives and cross-newsroom alliances.
5. To identify the implications of current verification practices for journalistic credibility and public discourse, and to propose recommendations for improved practice.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, systematically reviewing and integrating findings from peer-reviewed academic sources, professional reports, and empirical studies examining newsroom verification practices. This approach is appropriate given the research aim of providing a comprehensive overview of current knowledge on the subject, identifying patterns across multiple studies, and synthesising disparate findings into a coherent analytical framework.
The literature reviewed encompasses empirical studies employing diverse methodological approaches, including ethnographic observations within newsrooms, interviews with journalists and editors, content analyses of news outputs, and case studies of specific fact-checking organisations. This methodological diversity in the source material enables triangulation of findings and strengthens the validity of synthesised conclusions.
The selection criteria for included sources prioritised peer-reviewed journal articles, with particular emphasis on studies published in established journalism and communication journals. Additional sources included reports from reputable research institutions and professional organisations with expertise in journalism practice. Sources were evaluated for methodological rigour, relevance to the research questions, and recency, with particular attention to studies conducted during and after significant media events that tested verification systems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and major electoral campaigns.
The synthesis process involved thematic analysis of included sources, identifying recurring findings, points of consensus and divergence, and gaps in existing knowledge. Findings were organised according to the key themes that emerged from this analysis: verification gaps and their causes, common practices and workarounds, specialised verification approaches, and collaborative initiatives.
Limitations of this methodology include potential publication bias in the available literature and the possibility that rapidly evolving newsroom practices may outpace academic documentation. However, the literature synthesis approach remains appropriate for addressing the research aim of comprehensively understanding current knowledge on this subject.
Literature review
The propagate-first paradigm
A substantial body of research documents the tendency of online news outlets to repeat social media rumours with minimal independent verification. Silverman’s (2017) foundational study established that newsrooms frequently employ hedging language such as “reportedly” or question headlines rather than firm verification, practices that can still mislead audiences whilst providing a veneer of journalistic caution. This approach represents a significant departure from traditional verification standards, which historically positioned fact-checking as a prerequisite to publication rather than an optional supplement.
The economic and audience incentives underlying this behaviour have received considerable scholarly attention. Research indicates that newsrooms face pressure to “plant a flag” on viral stories quickly, lending their credibility to claims regardless of verification status (Silverman, 2017; Haque et al., 2020). The competitive dynamics of digital news environments create a first-mover advantage that rewards speed over accuracy, as audiences tend to engage with initial reports and may not return for corrections or updates. Studies have found that newsrooms frequently fail to update or correct stories when initial claims prove inaccurate, compounding the harm of premature publication.
Structural verification gaps
Research consistently identifies several structural factors that impede effective verification of user-generated content. The sheer volume and speed of content circulation on social media platforms creates an overwhelming verification burden that exceeds the capacity of most newsrooms. Studies across multiple national contexts have documented ad hoc verification practices, with many items shared without comprehensive assessment (Thomson et al., 2020; Edwardsson, Al-Saqaf and Nygren, 2021; Haque et al., 2020).
The absence of standardised verification guidelines for digital and visual content emerges as a recurring theme in the literature. Thomson et al. (2020) found that many newsrooms lack established protocols for verifying images and videos originating from social media, leaving individual journalists to improvise approaches without institutional guidance. Zecchinon and Standaert (2024) confirmed these findings in their case study of visual disinformation during the Ukraine conflict, noting that even prestigious outlets struggled to implement consistent verification routines.
Time and staffing constraints compound these structural challenges. General reporters consistently describe systematic verification as “too time-consuming” within the constraints of contemporary news production (Edwardsson, Al-Saqaf and Nygren, 2021; Haque et al., 2020). The resource-intensive nature of thorough digital verification conflicts with the lean staffing models that characterise many contemporary newsrooms, particularly in local and regional journalism.
Cultural barriers to digital verification
Beyond structural factors, research identifies cultural resistance to digital verification methods within newsrooms. Edwardsson, Al-Saqaf and Nygren (2021) documented a persistent preference among journalists for traditional verification methods, particularly phone calls and reliance on known sources, over digital tools such as reverse image searches or metadata analysis. This cultural orientation reflects both generational differences in technological familiarity and professional socialisation that valorises personal relationships over technological mediation.
Zecchinon and Standaert (2024) similarly observed that newsroom culture can impede adoption of systematic digital verification practices even when appropriate tools are available. Their findings suggest that verification is frequently conceptualised as a technical rather than editorial concern, resulting in its marginalisation within newsroom hierarchies and decision-making processes.
Specialised fact-checking units
A growing body of research examines the emergence of dedicated fact-checking units as organisational responses to verification challenges. These units operate both within established news organisations (such as Le Monde’s Les Décodeurs) and as independent organisations or divisions of news agencies (including Reuters, AFP, dpa, and EFE). Research indicates that these specialised units combine traditional reporting methods with open-source intelligence tools, including reverse image searches, geolocation analysis, and account forensics (Thomson et al., 2020; Gonzales, González and Moreno, 2024; Sushmita, Pawito and Rahmanto, 2021).
The methodological approaches employed by fact-checking units have received increasing scholarly attention. Gonzales, González and Moreno (2024) conducted an in-depth analysis of commonly used verification strategies, documenting the systematic processes that distinguish specialised fact-checkers from general newsroom practice. Their findings indicate that professional fact-checkers employ standardised methodologies that enhance both the rigour and the transparency of verification processes.
Cazzamatta (2025) examined the selection criteria that fact-checking units employ when determining which claims to investigate. This research identified a triage system based on “virality plus checkability,” whereby claims are prioritised according to their current spread, the availability of data for verification, and potential social impact. Significantly, fact-checkers often avoid debunking rumours that remain confined to closed channels, recognising that high-profile refutation can paradoxically accelerate dissemination.
Collaborative verification initiatives
The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed significant developments in cross-newsroom collaboration for verification purposes. Siwakoti et al. (2021) documented how the pandemic drove the evolution of fact-checking, with many newsrooms and independent platforms establishing alliances and international databases to share verification workload and methods. Palomo and Sedano (2021) examined these cross-media alliances, analysing their potential as solutions to the scale of misinformation whilst noting persistent limitations.
Gonzales, González and Moreno (2024) found that collaborative initiatives enabled smaller organisations to access verification resources that would otherwise exceed their individual capacity. However, research consistently indicates that collaboration remains limited by resource constraints, competitive dynamics between news organisations, and cultural barriers to sharing pre-publication intelligence.
The reactive verification paradigm
A consistent finding across the literature concerns the temporal relationship between viral spread and verification activity. Luengo and García-Marín (2020) observed that fact-checks typically follow publication and social spread rather than precede it, representing a fundamental shift from the traditional journalistic model of pre-publication verification. Zecchinon and Standaert (2024) confirmed this pattern in their analysis of visual misinformation during the Ukraine conflict.
This reactive paradigm has significant implications for the effectiveness of fact-checking as a corrective mechanism. Research on the continued influence effect suggests that initial misinformation can persist in memory even after correction, limiting the remedial impact of post-hoc fact-checks. The temporal gap between viral spread and verification thus represents not merely a procedural variation but a substantive compromise in journalistic accuracy.
Discussion
The synthesised findings reveal a complex landscape in which structural pressures, cultural factors, and emerging organisational innovations interact to shape verification practices. This discussion critically analyses these findings in relation to the stated objectives and considers their implications for journalism practice and scholarship.
Addressing verification impediments
The first objective sought to analyse factors impeding effective verification. The literature demonstrates that these impediments operate across multiple levels simultaneously. Economic pressures for rapid publication create systemic disincentives for thorough verification, whilst resource constraints limit the practical capacity for time-intensive verification processes. Cultural preferences for traditional methods compound these structural challenges by inhibiting adoption of digital verification tools that could enhance efficiency.
Significantly, these factors interact in ways that reinforce verification deficits. Economic pressure reduces time available for verification, which in turn prevents journalists from developing proficiency with digital tools, which reinforces cultural preferences for familiar methods, which ultimately limits the effectiveness of verification efforts. Breaking this cycle requires interventions at multiple points simultaneously rather than isolated reforms.
Common practices and their limitations
The second objective examined common newsroom practices when confronting viral content. The prevalence of hedging language and question headlines represents a compromise formation that attempts to reconcile publication speed with uncertainty acknowledgement. However, research indicates that audiences frequently overlook such hedges, interpreting qualified claims as affirmative statements. This finding suggests that current practices may satisfy journalists’ professional conscience without effectively protecting audiences from misinformation exposure.
The failure to update or correct initial reports represents a particularly concerning practice pattern. Even where newsrooms do not actively propagate falsehoods, the absence of correction mechanisms means that initial inaccuracies persist in the public record and continue to circulate through social media sharing. This pattern suggests that verification should be conceptualised not as a single pre-publication event but as an ongoing process throughout the lifecycle of news content.
Effectiveness of specialised units
The third objective evaluated specialised fact-checking units. The evidence indicates that these units employ more rigorous and systematic verification methods than general newsroom practice. Their use of standardised methodologies, open-source intelligence tools, and documented procedures represents a significant advancement in verification capability.
However, the effectiveness of these units is constrained by their positioning within the broader information ecosystem. Fact-checking remains predominantly reactive, addressing claims after they have achieved viral spread. The triage systems employed by fact-checking units, whilst rational responses to limited resources, necessarily leave many claims unexamined. Furthermore, the impact of fact-checks depends upon their visibility to audiences already exposed to misinformation, and research suggests that corrections frequently fail to reach initial audiences.
The strategic decision to avoid amplifying low-circulation rumours demonstrates sophisticated understanding of information dynamics but creates a paradox whereby fact-checkers must wait for harmful claims to spread widely before intervening. This temporal constraint is inherent to the reactive verification model and cannot be resolved through improved methods alone.
Collaborative initiatives and their constraints
The fourth objective assessed collaborative verification initiatives. The pandemic-era expansion of cross-newsroom alliances represents a promising development, enabling pooled resources and shared expertise. However, the persistence of resource constraints, competitive dynamics, and cultural barriers suggests that collaboration remains underdeveloped relative to the scale of verification challenges.
The potential for collaborative approaches extends beyond simple resource sharing to include methodological standardisation, training development, and collective advocacy for platform accountability. Realising this potential will require sustained investment in collaborative infrastructure and evolution of professional cultures that have historically valorised competitive independence.
Implications for credibility and discourse
The fifth objective concerned implications for journalistic credibility and public discourse. The findings suggest significant risks to both domains. When newsrooms amplify unverified claims, they transfer journalistic credibility to dubious content, potentially accelerating harmful misinformation spread. The prevalence of post-hoc correction rather than pre-publication verification means that journalism increasingly functions as an amplifier of viral content rather than a filter against misinformation.
These patterns have implications for public trust in journalism. Audiences who encounter corrections to stories initially reported uncritically may question the reliability of news sources more broadly. The verification deficit thus threatens not only accuracy in individual cases but the institutional credibility that enables journalism’s democratic functions.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how newsrooms handle verification when viral content spreads faster than fact-checking processes can operate. The literature synthesis demonstrates that viral dynamics push many newsrooms toward rapid amplification with weak upfront verification, whilst a growing but still limited layer of specialised fact-checking units applies more rigorous, tool-supported, and triage-based verification after content has already spread.
The first objective, analysing impediments to effective verification, has been achieved through identification of structural, economic, and cultural factors that operate in mutually reinforcing ways to limit verification capacity. The second objective, examining common practices, has documented the prevalence of hedging language, question headlines, and failure to correct initial reports as dominant responses to verification pressure. The third objective, evaluating specialised units, has demonstrated their methodological sophistication whilst noting their reactive positioning and resource constraints. The fourth objective, assessing collaborative initiatives, has identified promising developments alongside persistent barriers to their expansion. The fifth objective, concerning implications for credibility and discourse, has highlighted significant risks arising from current verification deficits.
The significance of these findings extends across academic, professional, and societal domains. For journalism scholarship, the findings contribute to understanding how digital transformation challenges traditional professional norms and organisational structures. For journalism practice, the findings suggest the need for investment in verification infrastructure, training in digital methods, and development of collaborative frameworks. For society, the findings underscore the importance of media literacy and the need for platform accountability in addressing misinformation.
Future research should examine the effectiveness of specific interventions designed to improve verification practices, including training programmes, technological tools, and organisational restructuring. Longitudinal studies tracking the evolution of verification practices would provide valuable evidence on the trajectory of journalistic adaptation to digital challenges. Research examining audience responses to hedged claims and corrections would inform the development of more effective communication strategies. Finally, comparative research across national contexts would illuminate how regulatory environments and media market structures shape verification practices.
The challenge of verifying viral content represents one of the defining problems of contemporary journalism. Whilst current responses remain inadequate to the scale of the challenge, the emergence of specialised units, collaborative initiatives, and systematic methodologies provides foundations for improved practice. Realising this potential will require sustained attention from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers committed to preserving journalism’s role in democratic discourse.
References
Cazzamatta, R., 2025. Fact-Checkers as New Journalistic Mediators: News Agencies’ Verification Units and Platform Dynamics. *Media and Communication*. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.9867
Cazzamatta, R., 2025. The truth game: Verification factors behind fact-checkers’ selection decisions. *Journalism*. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251371952
Edwardsson, M., Al-Saqaf, W. and Nygren, G., 2021. Verification of Digital Sources in Swedish Newsrooms — A Technical Issue or a Question of Newsroom Culture?. *Journalism Practice*, 17, pp. 1678-1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2021.2004200
Gonzales, H., González, M. and Moreno, J., 2024. The Methodology Used by Fact-Checkers. An In-Depth Analysis of Commonly Used Strategies. *Journalism Practice*, 20, pp. 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2024.2340522
Haque, M., Yousuf, M., Alam, A., Saha, P., Ahmed, S. and Hassan, N., 2020. Combating Misinformation in Bangladesh. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction*, 4, pp. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415201
Luengo, M. and García-Marín, D., 2020. The performance of truth: politicians, fact-checking journalism, and the struggle to tackle COVID-19 misinformation. *American Journal of Cultural Sociology*, 8, pp. 405-427. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-020-00115-w
Palomo, B. and Sedano, J., 2021. Cross-Media Alliances to Stop Disinformation: A Real Solution?. *Media and Communication*, 9, pp. 239-250. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3535
Papanastasiou, Y., 2018. Fake News Propagation and Detection: A Sequential Model. *Management Science*, 66(5), pp. 1826-1846. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3028354
Silverman, C., 2017. Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content. New York: Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8q81rhh
Siwakoti, S., Yadav, K., Bariletto, N., Zanotti, L., Erdoğdu, U. and Shapiro, J., 2021. How COVID drove the evolution of fact-checking. *Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review*. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-69
Sushmita, C., Pawito, P. and Rahmanto, A., 2021. Rumours and Infodemics: Journalist’s Social Media Verification Practices During the COVID-19 Pandemic. *Profetik: Jurnal Komunikasi*, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.14421/pjk.v14i1.2097
Thomson, T., Angus, D., Dootson, P., Hurcombe, E. and Smith, A., 2020. Visual Mis/disinformation in Journalism and Public Communications: Current Verification Practices, Challenges, and Future Opportunities. *Journalism Practice*, 16, pp. 938-962. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1832139
Zecchinon, P. and Standaert, O., 2024. The War in Ukraine Through the Prism of Visual Disinformation and the Limits of Specialized Fact-Checking. A Case-Study at Le Monde. *Digital Journalism*, 13, pp. 61-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2332609
