What this project is
ExamineTheRecord publishes contextual analyses of public narratives. Each analysis takes a specific reported claim and places it alongside the primary sources, prior reporting, and adjacent statements that bear on it. Where the comparison reveals a meaningful gap — a paraphrase that drops a clause, a sequence that supplies a connector, a descriptor that skips a disclosure — the gap is the article.
We are not a news outlet. We do not break stories. We respond to material that has already been reported, and our response takes the form of a structural reading rather than a counter-narrative. The aim is to make the underlying record easier to consult, and to make the distance between a report and its sources legible to a reader who has neither the time nor the access to do the comparison themselves.
Editorial principles
- Quote, do not characterize. Where we describe what a report or a document says, we link to it and, where possible, reproduce its language.
- Date everything. Every page on this site bears a publication date. Every revision is logged. Where a date is contested, we note the source of our date.
- Avoid adjectives where a noun will do. Editorializing language is the easiest tell of a partisan project. We try, with mixed success, to avoid it.
- Cite primary sources first. Where a primary source is available, we cite it directly rather than secondary reports of it.
- Welcome corrections. Email corrections@examinetherecord.com with a date, a passage, and a counter-source. We publish corrections inline, with a note.
What this project is not
ExamineTheRecord is not a venue for grievance, for vindication, or for argument by accumulation. We are uninterested in litigating motives, and we are uninterested in tone. We are interested only in the relationship between a claim and the record it rests on — and in the patterns that emerge when many such relationships are examined alongside each other.
Method
Each analysis follows the same structure: (1) a small number of specific claims, identified by quotation or citation; (2) the underlying source for each claim, reproduced or linked; (3) the comparison itself, set out so the reader can replicate it; (4) a sources list with every document used; and (5) a footnote section for anything that requires elaboration but would interrupt the body. Articles are typically reviewed by a second reader before publication, and revisions are dated and noted.
Corrections and contact
ExamineTheRecord welcomes corrections. We treat corrections as part of the work, not as failures of it. The fastest way to reach us is by email. Substantive corrections are noted in the article itself; minor typographical corrections are made silently.