Daily explainer story-selection checklist

What to take away

• Confirm that something material changed before assigning an explainer.
• Rank consequence, reader need, and evidence above online attention.
• Choose a question narrow enough to answer today.
• Match the format and update plan to the evidence.
• Delay or narrow the article when verification is not ready.

This checklist helps an editor decide whether a current event deserves a daily explainer and whether the newsroom can produce one responsibly. Mark each item yes, no, unknown, or not applicable. A high score does not excuse a failure in verification. The daily news explainer guide describes the article this checklist gates.

1. Has something changed?

• A decision, condition, finding, rule, number, service, risk, or deadline is new.
• The change can be stated in one factual sentence.
• The event date and publication date are not being confused.
• A recycled clip or old document is not creating false novelty.
• The article will add explanation beyond repeating the announcement.

If the only new element is attention, ask whether the newsroom should verify the circulating claim instead of building an explainer around it. If the change is real but still moving, the comparison of update types in breaking coverage helps name what kind of post the moment supports.

2. Is the central fact verified?

• The newsroom has the primary record or a direct source with authority.
• Independent reporting checks material claims where needed.
• The source supports the exact sentence planned for publication.
• Preliminary, attributed, disputed, or estimated status is clear.
• Images, video, dates, and locations have been checked.
• Two apparent sources are not repeating the same original claim.

A Journalist's Resource summary of First Draft's misinformation course describes free tools journalists can use to track down, source, and verify information found online before repeating it. The course dates to 2018 and tools change, but the discipline transfers: speed does not turn an unconfirmed claim into evidence.

3. Does it matter to the intended reader?

• The affected group can be named.
• The effect involves safety, service, money, rights, duties, access, or a major public decision.
• The timing of that effect is known or honestly uncertain.
• The likely reader question is recorded in plain language.
• The article can explain what does and does not change.

Popularity may reveal interest, but consequence can exist without high search volume. A utility shutoff affecting one district may be more useful to that audience than a national controversy with no local effect. Safety-adjacent subjects raise the bar further; the guide to health alerts and medical news shows how instruction-bearing stories differ.

4. Can the scope be answered today?

• The question has one defined event, period, place, and audience.
• Necessary context is available and current.
• The newsroom can distinguish confirmed answers from open questions.
• The title will not promise a cause, motive, or outcome that remains unknown.
• The planned article is not a disguised encyclopedia entry.

When the broad question cannot be answered, narrow it. "What investigators confirmed today" may be publishable when "why the system failed" is not. Scheduled data stories carry their own gate; see the economic release reporting checklist for those fields.

5. Is the format appropriate?

• A brief, FAQ, timeline, process guide, chart, or profile set matches the reader task.
• Each planned element adds distinct information.
• Data are defined well enough for a chart or table.
• A visual has a verified source, date, and accurate caption.
• The newsroom can maintain the format through expected changes.

6. Will the article help rather than overwhelm?

• The lead gives the direct answer.
• Background is limited to material that explains today's change.
• Headings let a reader locate the needed answer.
• Terms and numbers are explained at first use.
• Practical effects do not get buried beneath institutional detail.

The Reuters Institute's 2025 Digital News Report overview reports audience concerns about overload, relevance, and difficulty following news, while discussing more concise explanatory approaches. Those survey findings vary by market and group. They support testing whether an explainer reduces work for its intended reader rather than simply adding another page.

7. Is there an update plan?

• A named editor owns the page after publication.
• The next vote, release, hearing, briefing, or report is recorded.
• Shared claims and visual data have searchable source notes.
• The team knows what would require a correction rather than a routine update.
• The page can be retired or archived when it no longer reflects the current event.

Decision rule

Publish when the central change is verified, the reader need is clear, and the available evidence can answer the chosen question. Narrow the scope when only part can be answered. Wait when a central claim is unconfirmed. Reject when the page would repeat attention without adding verified understanding.

Common questions

Must a story be nationally important?

No. Importance is relative to the defined audience. Local service and safety changes can merit strong explainers.

Can one official source be enough?

It may confirm that body's own action or record. Claims about cause, effect, other parties, or disputed facts often need more evidence.

Should search interest decide the assignment?

No. It can identify questions, but editors should also weigh consequence, verification, public need, and newsroom capacity.

What if the event changes during writing?

Recheck the central question. Update the scope and every dependent claim before publication, or switch to a clearly labeled live format.