How We Work
Methodology
Chronicle is built on a simple premise: no single source tells the complete story of a conflict. By collecting, classifying, and cross-referencing sources across four distinct tiers, we construct a more complete historical record than any one outlet can provide alone.
Our Approach
Chronicle is a digital historical archive that tracks international conflicts by combining multiple source types into a single, navigable record. We aggregate reporting from wire services, major outlets, local media, and citizen journalists, then classify each source by reliability tier, verification status, and narrative perspective.
The philosophy behind this approach is straightforward. Wire services provide speed and factual grounding, but they rarely capture the lived experience of those on the ground. Major outlets offer analysis, but their editorial lenses shape what gets covered. Local and independent media fill crucial gaps, particularly in regions underserved by international bureaus. And social media, for all its noise, preserves testimony that would otherwise go unrecorded.
Chronicle does not pick winners among these sources. Instead, we present them together, clearly labelled, so that readers can assess the full landscape of available information. Where sources agree, confidence grows. Where they diverge, the divergence itself becomes part of the historical record.
Source Classification System
Every source ingested by Chronicle is assigned one of four reliability tiers. These tiers do not represent a simple ranking from "trustworthy" to "unreliable." Each tier captures a different type of information, with different strengths and limitations.
Tier 1: Wire Services and Official Sources
Wire services such as Reuters, Associated Press (AP), and Agence France-Presse (AFP) form the backbone of conflict reporting. These agencies maintain strict editorial standards, deploy correspondents to active zones, and serve as the primary factual source for downstream media worldwide.
This tier also includes government statements and official documents, United Nations reports (OCHA, UNHCR, OHCHR), and publications from recognized international organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Tier 1 sources are considered most reliable for factual claims about dates, locations, casualty figures, and official positions. However, they are not immune to error, and official statements may reflect political positioning rather than ground truth.
Tier 2: Major News Outlets
International broadcasters such as BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera, along with major newspapers including the New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post, constitute Tier 2. These outlets provide analytical depth, investigative reporting, and editorial context that wire services typically do not.
Tier 2 sources are valuable for understanding the broader narrative around events. They contextualize raw facts within political, historical, and social frameworks. Their coverage decisions, what they choose to report and how they frame it, are themselves data points in understanding how a conflict is perceived globally.
The limitation of Tier 2 sources is their editorial lens. Each outlet operates within a particular cultural and institutional context that shapes coverage priorities and framing.
Tier 3: Local and Independent Media
Regional newspapers, local broadcasters, and independent journalism outlets make up Tier 3. These sources are often the closest to events on the ground. They report in local languages, cover stories that international outlets miss, and provide perspectives shaped by direct proximity to the conflict.
Local language sources are particularly important. A significant amount of conflict reporting never reaches English-language audiences. By ingesting and translating local media, Chronicle captures information that would otherwise remain invisible to the global record.
The tradeoff with Tier 3 sources is variable editorial infrastructure. Some independent outlets maintain rigorous standards; others operate with limited resources and may lack formal verification processes. Chronicle accounts for this variability in its verification workflow.
Tier 4: Social Media and Oral History
Posts from Twitter/X, TikTok, Reddit, and Telegram, along with citizen journalism and eyewitness accounts, comprise Tier 4. This is the most contested category, but also one of the most historically valuable.
Social media posts function as primary testimony. They capture what people on the ground saw, felt, and experienced in their own words. In conflicts where press access is restricted, citizen documentation may be the only available record of events.
Chronicle treats Tier 4 content as oral history, not journalism. We display engagement metrics (likes, shares, replies) for context, flag verification status prominently, and present this content within a framework that acknowledges its nature as testimony rather than reported fact.
Oral history has always been essential to the historical record. Before modern media, most of what we know about conflicts came from personal accounts. Social media is the digital continuation of that tradition, and Chronicle preserves it with the care and context it deserves.
Verification Standards
Every source in the Chronicle archive carries a verification status label. These labels communicate our assessment of the source's reliability at the time of ingestion and are updated as new information becomes available.
Verified
The claim has been confirmed by at least two independent sources, ideally from different tiers. A Tier 4 social media post corroborated by a Tier 1 wire report, for example, would be marked verified.
Unverified
The claim comes from a single source or lacks independent corroboration. This is the default status for newly ingested content. Unverified does not mean false; it means we cannot yet confirm it.
Disputed
Credible sources disagree about the claim. This status is applied when two or more sources from Tier 1 through 3 present conflicting accounts of the same event. The dispute itself is documented.
Debunked
The claim has been demonstrably shown to be false through evidence, official retraction, or forensic analysis (e.g., reverse image search, geolocation). Debunked content remains in the archive with clear labelling, as misinformation itself is historically significant.
Cross-referencing Across Tiers
Our verification process relies on cross-tier corroboration. When a Tier 4 eyewitness account aligns with a Tier 1 wire report, both are strengthened. When a Tier 2 analysis contradicts a Tier 3 local report, that discrepancy is flagged for editorial review. This layered approach means that no single tier's limitations can compromise the integrity of the archive.
Data Collection Methods
Chronicle employs both automated ingestion and manual curation to build its archive. Neither method alone is sufficient; together, they balance coverage breadth with editorial judgment.
Automated Ingestion
Our backend systems pull from several data pipelines on a continuous basis:
- GDELT (Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone): provides structured event data from news sources worldwide, enabling broad conflict monitoring.
- RSS feeds: aggregated from Tier 1 and Tier 2 outlets covering each tracked conflict.
- Reddit: monitored for community-sourced conflict updates and citizen discussion in relevant subreddits.
- ReliefWeb: the UN's humanitarian information service, providing situation reports and policy documents.
Manual Curation
Automated systems cast a wide net, but editorial judgment determines what enters the archive. Our editors review ingested content for relevance, assign tier classifications, initiate verification workflows, and write context notes where needed. Social media content undergoes additional screening to assess authenticity and relevance before inclusion.
Conflict Selection
Chronicle currently tracks conflicts selected based on several criteria: scale of humanitarian impact, presence of significant information asymmetry between official and ground-level accounts, active coverage gaps in international media, and availability of multi-tier source material. Coverage scope is reviewed quarterly and expanded as editorial capacity allows.
Narrative Analysis
One of Chronicle's distinguishing features is its narrative comparison framework. For key events, we identify and present distinct perspectives from different source categories, showing how the same event is described by different actors.
Narrative Categories
We classify perspectives into six primary categories:
- Western Media: coverage from North American and European outlets, reflecting the editorial priorities and geopolitical framing common to these regions.
- Regional Media: reporting from outlets based in the conflict's geographic area, offering proximity-informed perspectives.
- Government Official: statements from state actors directly involved in or responding to the conflict.
- Citizen Witness: firsthand accounts from individuals on the ground, captured through social media and oral testimony.
- Opposition: perspectives from non-state actors, dissident groups, and organizations opposing official narratives.
- International Organization: assessments from the UN, NGOs, and multilateral bodies operating in the conflict zone.
Why Multiple Narratives Matter
Historical accuracy does not emerge from a single authoritative account. It emerges from the intersection of multiple perspectives, each carrying its own biases, access limitations, and institutional incentives. By presenting narratives side by side, Chronicle allows readers to see not just what happened, but how different actors understood and communicated what happened.
Divergences between narratives are as informative as agreements. When an official government statement contradicts citizen testimony, that gap becomes a data point. When Western and regional media frame the same event differently, the framing difference reveals underlying assumptions. Chronicle preserves these divergences as part of the historical record.
Editorial Standards
Chronicle operates under a set of editorial principles designed to maintain the integrity and usefulness of the archive over time.
Factual Accuracy Over Speed
We are an archive, not a breaking news service. Getting the record right matters more than being first. Content is verified and classified before it enters the public archive. When speed and accuracy conflict, accuracy wins.
Transparent Sourcing
Every piece of content in the archive includes a clear source attribution, tier classification, and verification status. Readers should never have to guess where information came from or how reliable we consider it. Source URLs, publication dates, and author information are preserved wherever available.
No Editorial Opinion in Source Presentation
Chronicle presents sources without editorial commentary or opinion. We classify, verify, and contextualize, but we do not tell readers what to think about the information. Our role is to organize the historical record, not to interpret it.
Context Notes for Oral History
Tier 4 content (social media and oral testimony) receives additional contextual framing. This includes engagement metrics, account age and credibility indicators where available, geographic and temporal context, and any relevant verification notes. The goal is to give readers the information they need to assess testimony on its own terms, without dismissing or privileging it.