How Afghan Verified Checks News

Afghan Verified was created to help the public understand how Afghanistan is represented in the media. Our purpose is not to support any political position. We examine how news is produced, what sources are being used, and whether reporting follows accepted professional standards.

This page explains, in simple terms, how our team evaluates news stories and what steps we follow before reaching any conclusion.

Our work begins by reading the report slowly and listing every claim it makes. A single article may contain facts, assumptions, opinions, and unverified statements. We separate them so each part can be tested properly.

To do this, we apply the Five W's and One H, a basic method used in professional journalism:

• Whois involved or affected?
• Whatexactly is being claimed?
• Whendid the event take place?
• Wheredid it happen?
• Whyis the event described as it is, and what reasons are given?
• Howdid the event unfold according to the report?

These questions help us identify missing details or unclear points. Any claim that cannot be linked to a clear answer is marked for further checking.

Once the claims are listed, we examine the sources behind them. We look at whether the article relies on named individuals, institutions, documents, or anonymous voices.

We ask:

• Does the source have logical access to the information?
• Is anonymity explained?
• Has the journalist contacted the individuals or bodies mentioned in the story?

Reports that rely on a single source, or that avoid offering a right of reply, are treated with caution.

After analyzing the claims and sources, we cross-reference the story with other established outlets reporting on Afghanistan. We check:

• Multiple confirmation: Has this story been reported by other independent sources?
• Documentary evidence: Are there official statements, photos, videos, or documents?
• Internal consistency: Does the story remain logically coherent without contradictions?
• Timeline verification: Do the dates, times, and sequence of events align with known facts?

Only after this thorough verification process does a story receive our approval for publication.

Every article receives a reliability score from 1 to 5 based on journalistic verifiability, not political affiliation or source reputation. We score based on:

• Named vs. anonymous sources: Stories with identified sources and direct quotes score higher than those citing anonymous claims
• Specific vs. vague details: Precise facts (exact numbers, dates, locations, names) indicate stronger verification than general statements
• Documentary evidence: Official statements, photos, videos, or documents provide the strongest verification
• Multiple verification: Independent confirmation from multiple outlets increases reliability
• Internal consistency: Stories must be logically coherent without contradictions

What we don't score on: Political affiliation, geographic location, or whether a source is "government" or "independent." An IEA official with specific, verifiable facts scores higher than an anonymous Western source with vague claims. Verifiability matters—not source identity.

Afghanistan's news landscape is plagued by misinformation, propaganda, and conflicting reports. Finding accurate information shouldn't require hours of cross-referencing dozens of outlets.

By systematically processing, verifying, and scoring news from trusted sources, we give you a single place to find reliable information about Afghanistan—with full transparency about how verified each piece of information is.