StackNexo LLP (hereafter referred to as “The Sigma Hunt” / “We” / “Us” / “Our”) would like to educate you about the care and caution that We take to ensure the accuracy of Our material, as outlined in Our Fact-Checking Policy.
All of Our stuff is accurate.
The most vital factor for every journalistic platform is the Trust of its audience. Trust can only be earned and maintained via accurate, fair, and balanced reporting. We must remain committed to achieving maximum accuracy in all of Our information. Our definition of ‘due accuracy’ is the accuracy that is not just of the required quality but also satisfactory.
We attempt to provide the most accurate account of every news item, which the news’s immediate stakeholders validate. In our pursuit of appropriate accuracy, We evaluate factors such as the subject and type of the material being supplied, the expectations of the audience, and so on. We conduct skeptical investigations, query assumptions, and challenge conventional wisdom.
We understand that there will always be areas of doubt, despite Our best attempts to resolve them. However, the rigor to fact-check information on soft and hard stories differs. The sources needed for a positive narrative about NGO activity, for example, would differ from those required for an investigative report.
To assure the accuracy of Our material, we follow the guidelines outlined below:
We ensure that any broadcast by Us comes from a credible source and is supported by concrete and confirmed proof. Without direct quotations, we must attribute the reports to the platform from which they were sourced.
We make every effort to verify any claims, allegations, or information ascribed to governmental authorities or from someone we believe has a purpose other than simply providing an account of the event’s truthfulness. As a result, we qualify and identify the material, including claims or allegations, that we cannot corroborate.
We stand behind the information we present and believe it to be correct. If proven differently, We modify the news item/information as soon as practically practicable and guarantee that We properly notify Our readers of such changes.
We understand that Our audiences’ faith in Us is critical. As a result, our goal is not intended to misinform anyone and to not manipulate or portray made-up information as the real stuff. Furthermore, when severe factual errors are revealed, we publicly accept them and guarantee that they are corrected as soon as possible, clearly and acceptably.
We ensure that the public has a fair opportunity to submit any mistakes or errors on Our Website via the “Suggest A Correction” segment at the end of every report produced and published.
Our journalists’ primary role is reporting, writing, and fact-checking news/information/stories. Our stories are scrutinized on numerous levels, including a rigorous fact-check internal method in which full due diligence is performed on each piece and then evaluated by one or more of Our editors. It should be noted that the seniority of editors who assess stories before publishing on the Website varies and is dependent on a variety of criteria such as the complexity and sensitivity of the problem, as well as the strain of time.
In the event of an allegation, we make every effort to contact all parties involved. We then independently check the information in question and the information being provided to reach the most accurate outcome.
Obtaining Data for Our Content
We obtain information in the most reliable manner possible by adhering to the following guidelines:
Check each item of communication with at least two sources.
In the case of a single source, the source’s credibility is ensured through corroboration with what the person is saying.
Instead of depending exclusively on a human source, look for documentary evidence in every case.
In the event of a survey, it is Our responsibility to explain how the information was gathered and how the data was interpreted. If there is a danger that Our data will not lead to correct information, we will notify the public as soon as feasible.
The goal and objective are to obtain accurate information in the first place rather than making it public first and then addressing any doubts that may arise.
Always try to get and discuss information/news with stakeholders on the record. Explain why a source is not named when an anonymous source is utilized. Work with such sources to supply the readers with as much information as possible so that readers may assess the sources’ reliability.
Share source information with Our editors to allow them (editors and reporters) to judge whether the relevant piece of information is appropriate for usage and how it should be used. Anonymous quotations must reflect the discussion between the reporter and the editor.
Have brief dialogues with sources about using the information they provide, especially if the authorities lack extensive experience communicating with the media. Clarify a source’s expectations for keeping material “off the record,” “on background,” and other statuses, as these terms might mean various things to different people.
Let people reply to news that may represent them negatively, and explain to readers the attempts We make to obtain a response when sources do not respond.
Consciously seek sources who lack access to large public platforms and those who are prominent and influential.
A senior resource or the person in charge of the newsroom at The Sigma Hunt can always be consulted if one is in a quandary or cannot choose their own to prevent presenting incorrect information to the audience.
User-Generated Content (UGC)
User-generated material presents unique issues. We do not presume that the information submitted with Us is accurate, and depending on how We intend to use it, We take reasonable steps to verify its authenticity. We are cautious about using the information provided by a lobbyist or someone with a vested interest in the subject rather than a disinterested spectator. We make sure that user-generated content is appropriately labeled as such. Furthermore, we adhere to the following guidelines:
Information sources that appear trustworthy may not necessarily be correct on the internet. It may be essential to verify who runs the WWWWebsite and confirm with an individual or organization that the material relevant to them is authentic.
It is important to discern between fact and rumor. This is primarily, but not exclusively, true for material available on social media, where distortions may be intentional or unintentional, but where errors or rumors can spread like wildfire within minutes among audiences worldwide. At the same time, corrections find it much more challenging to gain the same momentum.
Additional investigation may be required when content from a social media site or another internet source is utilized to corroborate a fact. We qualify and identify all content that we did not gather.
