A few recent examples have made it crystal clear what happens when stories aren’t grounded in solid, verifiable fact.
Press Gazette recently uncovered a PR agency pitching tear-jerking tales of “lottery losers” to outlets like Metro, The Sun, and Daily Mail. But the “winners” couldn’t be found online, and the agency admitted it deleted all records after just 30 days. The result? SEO-friendly content built on smoke and mirrors.
Then came The Telegraph’s now infamous feature: a private school parent claiming their family had been forced to cut back to just one holiday a year due to VAT changes on school fees. But the reality?
The interviewee’s name and identity were fake, the accompanying photos were stock images, over a decade old – the “family” left no digital trace.
The article was eventually pulled, and The Telegraph admitted its verification process had failed.
Something’s Not Stacking Up
The rise of AI-generated content — and even AI-generated people — means it’s easier than ever to create something that feels true without actually being true.
When stories are written or sourced with AI but not verified by humans, editorial standards can quickly slip. We start to rely on what sounds plausible instead of what’s proven. And that’s where the line blurs between compelling content and misinformation.
There’s another uncomfortable truth behind this wave of unverified, PR-packaged stories – journalist job cuts. With shrinking newsrooms, overstretched reporters, and relentless pressure to publish fast, fewer people are asking the tough but essential questions.
“Who is this source? Where’s the evidence? Is this real?”
So when a story like The Telegraph’s “holiday cutbacks” goes live without basic checks, we have to ask: whose editorial responsibility is it, really? The journalist? The subeditor? The PR who supplied the case study? The client who signed it off?
As the lines between earned media and advertorials continue to blur, shared responsibility is crucial — but so is journalistic rigour. Because if no one’s checking the facts, then we all suffer when trust breaks down.
What this means for us — and our clients
At The Ripple Effect, we hold ourselves to high compliance and editorial standards — and recently, we’ve found ourselves repeating this:
“We can’t – and won’t – force respondents to give the answers you want”.
Here’s why:
- Emotion without accountability is dangerous. Shocking stories might grab headlines, but without credible sourcing, they’re closer to fiction than journalism.
- Verifiability is non-negotiable. Whether it’s survey insight, lived experience, or third-party voices – if you can’t trace it, it’s not fit for publication.
- Transparency builds long-term trust. Fake names, stock photos, and deleted data might land you one piece of coverage – but they’ll cost you your credibility.
At Ripple, we work with brands, journalists, and consumers who value honesty and transparency. We build credible campaigns with insight that stands up to scrutiny – whether it’s in the media, in Parliament, or used in your business decision making processes.
How we do it
- Clarity & consent: Our questions are neutral. Participants know what they’re part of – and why.
- Verification wherever possible: We confirm identities, archive responses, and document methodology.
- Uncomfortable truth has value: If the insight challenges a brand or brief – even better. We believe audiences want the truth.
- Durability: Our data doesn’t disappear. It is stored securely and ethically – ready if you need to back it up.
- No leading or steering: We include balanced, neutral options – always.
When a story lands because it’s true, not just clickable, everyone wins.