For years, several local newspapers in Castellón published submitted photographs as if they showed real people or stories; it was later revealed that they formed part of a prank. The useful lesson is not to repeat undocumented names, but to understand how an image with a convincing caption can pass through a weak editorial check.
What the case supports—and what it does not
The episode illustrates the fragility of third-party submissions: a photograph, name and coherent story do not by themselves establish identity, date or place. Attributing each individual image would require the original edition, published caption, submitted file and later correction. When that chain is missing, describe the general phenomenon without turning memories or isolated screenshots into evidence.
A method for checking a submitted photograph
- Request the original file. A screenshot or forwarded image loses metadata and context.
- Find its earliest appearance. Reverse image search can reveal whether it previously circulated under another name.
- Confirm identity and place independently. A telephone number supplied by the sender is not a second source.
- Check date and visual consistency. Signs, clothing, light, buildings and camera quality may contradict the account.
- Keep the editorial record. Note who checked it, which sources were consulted and what remains unconfirmed.
Warning signs for a local newsroom
Review is especially important when a story seeks immediate surprise, arrives just before deadline, lacks a verifiable contact or demands urgent publication. Shared writing style, email domain or file pattern across supposedly different identities is another signal. No single clue proves deception, but a combination is reason to pause publication.
What a reader should see in a correction
A useful correction identifies the affected article, explains what was wrong, shows the change and retains the correction date. Silent deletion hides the error; leaving false information without a notice perpetuates it. Editorial transparency protects readers and helps archives and search engines distinguish the corrected version.
Practical resource
Spain’s cybersecurity institute provides a citizen guide to hoaxes and fake news, recommending source checks, comparison with several reliable sources and verification before sharing. Applied to the Castellón episode, the central rule is simple: publication in a newspaper does not turn an image into proof.
Research the archive without amplifying the deception
Search for the caption in quotation marks, restrict results to the publication period and compare digitised copies of the same edition. Keep primary evidence—the newspaper page—separate from articles that merely retell the anecdote years later. Do not contact or identify private people from visual resemblance alone. If documentation cannot confirm a name, state that uncertainty and focus on the verification process.
- Record the URL, consultation date and a complete page capture.
- Distinguish the first publication from later reproductions.
- Send a documented correction to the publisher when a false attribution is found.