# Separate What an Outlet Saw From What It Attributes Secondhand ## Claim In a multi-source breaking-news piece, separate what the outlet says it saw directly from what it attributes to another outlet's sources before treating any single fact as settled. <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ## Scope & conditions - The tiers are usually marked in the prose — "according to", "first reported by", "documents seen by" — and reading for those markers is the whole method. - Matters most in the first 48 hours, when a cluster's apparent corroboration is often one source retold. - A fact carried by ten outlets that all cite the same original is one source, and counting outlets measures reach rather than confirmation. - Does not require distrusting secondhand facts, only labelling them. ## Evidence From the thirteen-outlet cluster covering the Automattic board action, where most outlets' central facts trace to a single original report. ## Links - [[Original Reporting Identifies Itself by an Obtained Statement and a Named Non-Answer]] — the article-level version — this note works fact by fact inside one piece - [[A Single Internal Channel Is Still a Single Source]] — the same counting error made with speakers instead of outlets - [[A Summary of a Hedged Source Strips the Hedge]] — what each retelling costs the claim as it moves down the tiers - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Evidence & Claims Literacy MOC]] — the sourcing-discipline thread this method belongs to.