This case study is an illustrative walkthrough. It focuses on method, not on any specific real-world claim, and demonstrates how the verification workflow plays out in practice.
Summary
A photograph circulates on election day claiming to show irregularities at a polling place. The task is to determine whether the image is authentic and accurately described.
Research question
Does this image depict what the caption claims — this place, this day?
Methodology
- Preserve — the post is screenshotted and archived immediately.
- Reverse search — the image is run through multiple engines. An earlier appearance is found from a prior year.
- Geolocate — visible signage and architecture are matched to a different city than claimed.
- Cross-reference — no independent reporting corroborates the caption.
Findings
The image is authentic but miscaptioned — a real photo from an earlier, unrelated event. This is the most common form of election visual misinformation.
Limitations
Absence of corroboration is not proof of intent. The finding addresses the caption's accuracy, not who reshared it or why.
Lessons learned
- Preserve first; sources vanish quickly.
- Miscaptioning is more common than fabrication.
- Document each step so the conclusion is reproducible.
#verification#image#osint