Readers sometimes ask us how a small newsroom decides what to trust. The short answer is that we do not ask you to trust us. We ask you to check us. Every story on Amazing News Media ends with a list of the sources it was built from, and every one of those sources is linked so you can read it yourself.
This post walks through how we put a story together, and why we work the way we do.
Step one: two sources, minimum
Our rule is simple. No story is published unless it is supported by at least two credible, independent sources. Credible means official statements and records, court and agency documents, data from recognized institutions, and established news organizations. Independent means the second source is not simply repeating the first.
Two is a floor, not a target. A story about a federal benefit change, for example, may draw on the agency’s own announcement plus two news reports that add context. When we cover a schedule or a set of rules, we look for the organization that sets them.
Step two: go to the original whenever we can
We prefer primary sources over summaries of them. If an agency publishes a press release, we read the release rather than relying on a story about it. If a report is cited, we try to find the report.
That preference is not ours alone. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which many newsrooms use as a reference point, puts it plainly: “Use original sources whenever possible.”
When we do rely on another outlet’s reporting, for instance an analysis that only one organization has published, we say so in the text and link to it. Our recent explainer on Medicare Advantage plans ending in 2027 is an example: the research figures in it are attributed to the outlets that reported them.
Step three: check every number against more than one place
Before a story goes live, an editor checks names, titles, dates, figures, places and quotes against the cited sources. This is where conflicts turn up, and they turn up more often than you might expect.
While preparing our story on the end of daylight saving time, we found one summary that gave a different House vote total from the others. We used the 308 to 117 tally that two independent sources reported consistently, and the outlier stayed out of the story. When sources genuinely disagree and we cannot resolve it, we tell readers that they disagree rather than picking one quietly.
Step four: quotes are copied, never composed
We put quotation marks around words only when those exact words appear in a source we cite. We do not tidy up a quote, merge two quotes into one or paraphrase inside quotation marks. If we cannot find the verbatim wording, we paraphrase without quotation marks and attribute the idea.
We also do not use anonymous sources of our own. If another outlet’s story relies on unnamed sources, we say that in our text.
Step five: our own words and our own headline
Each story is an original summary written in our words. We do not copy other publications’ text, and our headlines are written fresh rather than borrowed. That is partly about fairness to the outlets whose work we build on, and partly about usefulness: a good summary should add structure and context, not just repeat what is already out there.
Where AI fits, and where it does not
We use AI tools to help find and organize source material, summarize long documents and produce first drafts. AI is never treated as a source, it does not invent quotes or facts, and it does not decide what we publish. A human editor checks and approves every story. The SPJ code makes the same point about tools in general: “Remember that speed, technology or medium do not excuse inaccuracy or unfairness.” Our AI Content Disclosure has the details.
Why we tell you all this
Search platforms increasingly expect publishers to be open about how their work is made. Google’s News policies, for example, state: “Visitors to your site want to trust and understand who writes and publishes the content they read.” We agree, and that is why every story carries the byline of our Editor-in-Chief, Grant Whitfield, who edits and approves it and is accountable for it. It gives readers a single point of accountability.
And when we get something wrong, we fix it and say what changed. The SPJ code asks journalists to “gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.” Our Corrections Policy explains how, and our full Editorial Process page lays out every standard described here. If you spot an error, write to corrections@amazingnewsmedia.com.
