Source vetting before granting an interview, in twelve minutes.
A reporter has reached out. Or your comms team has surfaced a profile opportunity. Before you spend forty-five minutes on Zoom and risk being characterized in a way you cannot edit, here is the workflow that gives you informed consent: who is the reporter, what do they cover, what does their publication look like, and what should you expect from the interview format.
The scenario
An email arrives Wednesday morning. A reporter from a publication you have not heard of asks for a thirty-minute call. They mention your recent Series A and "the broader trend of AI-native businesses". They want to publish on Friday. They are friendly. They mention a colleague at your company they spoke to "off the record".
You want to know:
- Is this reporter a real working journalist? At what publications?
- What is their actual beat? AI-native businesses, or something else?
- Is the publication serious? What is its audience size and editorial track record?
- How has this reporter handled similar subjects in past stories?
- Is there a public corrections record at this publication that should give you pause?
- Who really owns the publication?
The traditional answer is: ask your comms team to research. Comms takes two days, the reporter's deadline is in three. The MentionFox answer is two reports that complete in twelve minutes.
Why this matters
Reporters and subjects have asymmetric information. The reporter has spent twenty hours on the story before reaching out. The subject has thirty seconds to decide whether to engage. That asymmetry is acceptable when the subject knows the reporter and the publication; it is risky when they don't.
The signals that matter most:
- Beat consistency. A reporter who has covered AI-native businesses for three years writes a different story from one who switched beats two months ago.
- Past treatment of similar subjects. Were they fair? Did they include the subject's perspective? Did they characterize the subject's industry accurately?
- Publication-level signal. A small but reputable Substack with a known editor differs materially from an aggregator content farm with anonymous editorial leadership.
- Ownership and editorial independence. A publication owned by a competitor's investor is a flag worth surfacing.
- Corrections cadence. Frequent corrections at the publication are a yellow signal; frequent un-corrected errors a red one.
What to verify on a journalist
- Editorial track record across outlets. Career arc, current title and outlet, freelance versus staff. Sourced from Muck Rack, ByLine.com, masthead pages.
- Beat coverage and consistency. Topic clustering across recent bylines. Cross-beat work patterns.
- Voice and public persona. Twitter / X bio history, public commitments, source-engagement patterns.
- Source-network signal. Publicly named contributors and on-the-record interview subjects across recent bylines. (No source deanonymization.)
- Awards and fellowships. Pulitzer, Polk, Loeb, ONA, IRE — career-stage milestones.
- Ethics signal. SPJ ethics archive where applicable. Public corrections record.
- Defamation case surface. CourtListener civil case search bounded by litigation-activity disclaimers.
What to verify on the publication
- Ownership and parent company. Crunchbase company record, parent company, foundation backing or VC funding for nonprofit and VC-backed media.
- Editorial leadership. Masthead position, executive editor, contributing editors.
- Audience and reach. Similarweb traffic estimates, public subscriber-count signals, paid-tier presence.
- Editorial-staff stability. Departures and hires across the prior 24 months. Masthead changes.
- Public corrections record. Corrections cadence, retraction record where available.
- Editorial track record. Awards, citations of work in other publications, cross-publication commentary.
What a subject's twelve minutes looks like
Open the Journalist Vetter
Type the reporter's name. Confirm the right person via the disambiguation card. Click "Generate Snapshot".
Open the Publication Vetter
Type the publication's domain. Confirm the right publication. Click "Generate Snapshot". Both snapshots run in parallel.
First snapshot returns — the reporter
Headline: "Reporter has covered AI for 3 years across X, Y, Z outlets. Beat consistency strong. No public ethics flags. 12 bylines past 90 days."
Second snapshot returns — the publication
Headline: "Publication owned by parent company. 200K monthly visitors. Editor-in-chief is X (since 2021). Editorial-staff stability good. Public corrections page maintained."
Decide — engage, set ground rules, or bring a publicist
Reporter and publication both check out. Schedule the interview, no special conditions.
Or — escalate to full report
Snapshot raises a question (e.g. reporter has covered competitors aggressively, or publication has had recent editorial-leadership turnover). Run the full reports for context across the prior twelve sections.
Reply with your decision
Either accept enthusiastically, accept with ground rules, suggest written-question format, decline politely, or refer to your comms team. Your reply is grounded in evidence, not in vibes.
The outcomes — what the report tells you
Strong signal — engage
Reporter has consistent beat coverage. Publication has known editorial leadership and a public corrections record. Editorial-staff stability is strong. No public-reputation flags. Schedule the interview.
Mixed signal — set ground rules
Reporter is real but covers a different beat than they claim. Or publication is small and recently spun out from a larger outlet. Engage, but ask for the angle in writing first and consider asking to review pull quotes.
Weak signal — bring a publicist
Reporter or publication has limited public footprint. Or reporter has covered the subject's industry with consistent skepticism. Engage only with experienced PR support.
Red signal — decline politely
Publication has serial public corrections, ownership traces to a competitor's investor, or reporter has a documented pattern of misrepresentation. Decline. Refer to a different reporter at a different publication.
Pricing for this use case
Two Snapshots — reporter + publication
Standard pre-interview screen.
60 credits total
30cr reporter snapshot + 30cr publication snapshot. Returns in roughly 90 seconds for both.
Two Full Reports — high-stakes interviews
Long-lead profile, sit-down interview, on-record investigative engagement.
400 credits total
200cr reporter report + 200cr publication report. Twelve sections each, with full source citations across reporter beat consistency, publication editorial-staff stability, and public-reputation surface.
Credits are platform-wide. A Pro plan includes a credit grant monthly; pay-as-you-go credit packs are available. See pricing for current plans.
Related
Journalist Vetting Reports → Publication Vetting Reports → Methodology: Journalist → Methodology: Publication →