“Alleged” tells us a claim has been made.
It does not tell us the claim is true. The next questions are who made it, what evidence supports it, whether it is disputed and what remains unknown. Adding the word cannot turn a guess into evidence.
There is also a difference between establishing that someone made an accusation and establishing the accusation itself. “A public statement contains this allegation” may be verifiable even when the underlying event cannot be established.
“Reported” needs an actual report.
“Reported by” should lead readers to a named source and a date. It should not be a vague substitute for “I saw it somewhere”. Several posts repeating the same original claim are not necessarily independent corroboration.
Follow the chain back. Is the article relying on an interview, an official document, an eyewitness or another account that does not show its evidence? A source can be worth considering without being sufficient to settle the story.
“Confirmed” must say exactly what is confirmed.
A dated document might establish that a form was filed—not that every claim written on it was proved. A recording may show words being spoken without revealing what happened before or after. Verification should be precise about its scope.
Fictional example—not about a real person
Too broad: “The complaint proves the organiser stole the money.”
More precise: “A complaint has been filed alleging missing funds. Filing the complaint does not establish that theft occurred.”
Opinion should show its foundation.
“I think this policy is unfair because…” makes the judgement and its basis visible. Dressing an unsupported accusation up as “just my opinion” does not make it responsible journalism.
For England and Wales, the Defamation Act 2013’s honest-opinion defence has conditions, including that a statement be opinion and indicate its basis. Other issues and jurisdictions can differ. This explainer is not an assessment of whether a particular publication would be lawful. [1]
Keep the date, context and people in view.
Before sharing a clip, check when it was recorded, whether it has been edited and whether the caption fits what it shows. A cropped image should not silently become a complete account.
Ask whether personal details are necessary. A child’s privacy should not be treated as a bonus for readers following their parent’s public dispute. Do not use a stock photograph to imply that the person pictured is involved in the story.
IPSO’s Editors’ Code calls for accuracy, a distinction between fact and comment, and care with privacy and children. It is cited here as an editorial reference—not as a claim that The Signal is an IPSO member or has been approved by the regulator. [2]
Apply the same standard to the argument you like.
In our feature on gifting, poverty and status, a national charity-giving estimate does not prove who sends celebrity gifts. A psychological framework does not diagnose a viewer. Research can explain part of a question without answering every part of it.
The responsible sentence is sometimes: “We could not establish that.” Not because the subject is unimportant, but because readers deserve to know where the evidence ends.
Sources
- Defamation Act 2013, section 3: Honest opinion. General reference, not individual advice.
- IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice, in particular accuracy, privacy and children. Reviewed 8 October 2026.
Picture credits
- Annie Spratt / Unsplash — A stack of newspapers on a wooden table, illustrating media literacy. Used under the Unsplash License; resized and converted to WebP, with display crops on the homepage. Not public domain; no endorsement implied.