We are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, as indicated on our "Our Mission" page, which is available as a drop-down menu item under "About Us": http://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

It is also explained on our donation page (click on "Additional Information FactCheck Donations Fund"): https://giving.aws.cloud.upenn.edu/fund?fastStart=simpleForm&program=ANS&fund=602014

And on "Our Funding" page: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

We also explain that we are a project of UPenn's APPC on our copyright page: https://www.factcheck.org/copyright-policy/

Factcheck.org is a distinct unit/project within the University of Pennsylvania's Anneberg Public Policy Center - their legal status is detailed on the provided links.

1. 2003. The co-founders are Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and former dean of the Annenberg School for Communications who researched and wrote extensively on effective fact-checking methods, and Brooks Jackson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal and AP who did fact-checking at CNN during the 1992 election, using methods pioneered by Dr. Jamieson. Our goal then -- as it is now -- is to reduce the level of confusion and deception in politics, using the best techniques of journalism and scholarship.

2. Nine full-time staffers, including an NABJ fellow, and one part-time staffer. We also have four undergraduate student fellows who work part-time. Staff: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/ Fellows: https://www.factcheck.org/undergraduate-fellows/

The FactCheck.org director makes all final editorial decisions -- often in consultation with the managing editor, who is in charge when director is not available, and the deputy managing editor. All staffers research and write stories, and we all fact check stories written by others. Some staffers have line editing responsibilities -- typically the director, managing editor and assignment editor/project manager of our third-party fact-checking project with Facebook. We require that each story be edited by at least two people, so there are times when other staffers get involved in editing on a second read.

Our undergraduate fellows help us review transcripts and videos, fact-check articles prior to publication and respond to thousands of readers’ emails. They also occasional write such stories as profiles of third-party PACs that raise and spend money seeking to influence elections.

3. Research and publish fact checks, produce and publish videos and train University of Pennsylvania students in fact checking. We also make our staff available to discuss fact-checking at public events held by universities, schools, libraries and other organizations.  

4. Our mission is to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics, largely through fact-checking major U.S. political figures on public policy issues of importance and debunking viral deceptions circulating on social media. In addition to fact-check articles, we also answer reader questions through features called Ask FactCheck and Ask SciCheck, publish Q&As and Guides intended to provide factual information on complex public policy issues, and write profiles of major third-party organizations that seek to spend millions of dollars on advertising to influence federal elections. In the coming year, our focus will be on the 2022 midterm elections, COVID-19 and the public policy initiatives being debated in Congress. 

All required information is stated transparently here and on the provided links. Overall, factcheck.org fulfills its role of being a "consumer advocate" by dispelling misinformation and checking claims on behalf of the public. The assessor's knowledge of this organization's track-record is that it is very reputable and trusted.

The United States remains a deeply divided state in terms of politics and ideology after the 2020 election of Democrat Joe Biden. Much public controversy surrounds the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of public health measures and mandates, but also around the recent infrastructure bill, racial disparity and violence, and environmental legislation. Social media platforms have contributed to a growing interest in conspiracy theories about the pandemic, politics, and other issues.

Factcheck.org's service to the public within this context fulfills their mission of reducing deception and confusion in politics, which ties not only to the current election but also to the political response to the pandemic.

Given how established and well-resourced this organization is, it is well set-up for its purpose.

We published more than 400 fact-check articles and videos in the last 12 months, from October 2020 to September 2021, or about eight fact checks a week. Attached is a spreadsheet with evidence that we have published at least one a week.

An archive of all of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

Factcheck.org publishes several fact checks most weeks ov er the last 12 months. 

An archive of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

More than 75% of the applicant's fact checks focus on claims that could impact the welfare of individuals and the public. Each of the fact checks submitted by factcheck.org and the additional 10 that the assessor evaluated meet this standard and a purusal of their archive confirms that their work exclusively eals with issues related to public welfare.

We receive no government funding, foreign or domestic, and we have a prohibition on accepting funds from political parties and politicians.

We publish quarterly and annual financial reports on our website that explain in detail the types of funding that we do and do not accept, as well as names of those who have donated $1,000 or more: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

We do not seek and have never accepted, directly or indirectly, any funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. We do not accept funds from corporations with the exception of Facebook, as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions circulating on the social media site, and Google, which provided funding for our COVID-19 partnership with Univision. We note on our funding page that Facebook and Google have no control over our editorial decisions. We disclose the identity of any individual or organization that makes a donation of $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations in our quarterly reports. In 2015, Inside Philanthropy praised our disclosure policy for “exemplifying nonprofit transparency.” 

The applicant does not reciving any funding from commercial, financial or political entities that would influence their editorial content.

We receive no government funding, foreign or domestic, and we have a prohibition on accepting funds from political parties and politicians.

As mentioned above, we publish quarterly and annual financial reports on our website: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

N/A (see 1.5)

We fact check the statements of major U.S. politicians, answer reader questions, debunk viral deceptions (with a focus on COVID-19 misinformation), and write Q&As and Guides on important public policy and health issues.

The 10 examples below illustrate fact-checks involving political claims made in TV ads, interviews, press conferences, speeches, as well as viral misinformation circulating on social media. I also included an example of explainer pieces that we do to provide information on important public policy issues of the day -- in this case on face masks.

Here are the 10 links that show the scope of our work over the previous 12 months:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-ongoing-clinical-trials-will-decide-whether-or-not-ivermectin-is-safe-effective-for-covid-19/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/factchecking-bidens-statements-about-afghanistan/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/a-guide-to-the-cdcs-updated-mask-recommendations/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/scicheck-the-facts-and-gaps-on-the-origin-of-the-coronavirus/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/both-sides-spinning-jobs-report/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/04/factchecking-bidens-address-to-congress/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/factchecking-bidens-first-press-conference/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/mypillow-ceos-video-rehashes-debunked-election-fraud-claims/

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/trumps-falsehood-filled-save-america-rally/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/the-whoppers-of-2020/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/loeffler-warnock-runoff-starts-with-attack-ads/

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/nothing-untoward-about-counting-ballots-after-election-day/

When selecting material to write about, we seek to devote an equal amount of time reviewing claims by Republicans and Democrats. We do that by reviewing statements they make about public policy in the same venues - such as debates, news shows, press conferences, major speeches and TV ads. The idea is to treat the candidates and parties in a fair and even-handed way when searching for material to write.

We review transcripts and videos of the president, vice president, cabinet officials, congressional leaders of both parties and other major U.S. political figures. We use CQ Transcriptions, Rev.com, CNN transcripts, MSNBC transcripts, Fox News transcripts, CSPAN, the White House website and SnapStream to identify possible claims in video and transcripts. We also review TV and digital ads from Advertising Analytics, a paid service that provides us TV ads for House, Senate and presidential races.  

Once we find a statement on a public policy issue that we suspect may be inaccurate or misleading, we will engage -- or attempt to engage -- with the person or organization that is being fact checked, so we can have the benefit of their sources and research. (We ask the person making the claim to provide evidence to support it.)

As for our research, we rely on primary sources of information, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics (employment stats), Bureau of Economic Analysis (economic data), Energy Information Administration (energy data) and Census Bureau (trade and other data). All of our stories include links to the source material used in our fact checks to allow our readers to duplicate our work. When quoting experts, we provide not only their current titles and employer but also any relevant background information, such as their previous work in government or campaigns -- if applicable.

Prior to publications, our stories undergo a rigorous review. They are line edited, copy edited and fact checked for completeness, accuracy and fairness. In addition to benefiting our readers, the links we provide in our stories are used by our staff to fact check our stories prior to publication. As many as four people who had nothing to do with writing or researching the story may review our stories prior to publication.

In short, we follow a process to treat all parties and individuals fairly, follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may. 

After reading the 10 provided fact-checks and an additional random sample of 10 more, the assessor found that factcheck.org uses a consistent and high standard of evidence regardless of the claim being analyzed. The most frequent topic/source of claims analyzed are from either President Joe Biden or conspiracy-theory based claims related to COVID-19, and both have dominanted news cycles this last year so the frequency of those topics makes sense. Factcheck.org goes to great lengths to unpack the details for readers and let the evidence dictate their conclusions. They demonstrate nonpartisanship not just in the consistency of their work, but also in language like the following from :

"We take no position on whether the Biden administration’s policies are helping or hurting the economy’s recovery — that’s a matter for political debate. But the RNC post is cherry-picking data to suggest that the economy has reversed or slowed an upward trend inherited from the previous administration."

The organization also writes "explainer" pieces that function somewhat differently than other claim-specific fact-checks - these appear to serve as an overview of related topical claims (on something like vaccines). But these longer pieces are only different in terms of their genre, not their standards of evidence.

We have a page on the website that describes "Our Process," which states that "we seek to devote an equal amount of time reviewing claims by Republicans and Democrats" and explain how we accomplish that. It also includes videos explaining our process. Here is the page: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

Factcheck.org's process is clearly explained on the "Our Process" page - and their interest in evaluating political claims gives them the opportunity to evaluate claims from both the right and the left.

An archive of all of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

Factcheck.org is thorough in providing details about its sources, describing for readers any relevant positions, credentials, or affiliations. The assessor did not note any instances where the interests of a source were not disclosed.

An archive of all of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/https://www.factcheck.org/archives/

On the website and on the social media pages of the organization, there appears to be no indication of political preference. The assessor did not find any instances in the sample where language within the fact checks reveals a bias or political leaning.

We have a nonpartisanship policy that clearly states that staffers cannot be involved in any political or advocacy organizations, and they cannot make any contributions to such organizations, among other things. "Our Staff" page on our website includes information about our nonpartisanship policy, which staffers must sign: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/#nonpartisanship-policy-for-staff

The non-partisanship policy is clearly stated for staffers on their site. Additionally, a randomized search for social posts from staffers generated few public accounts (most were private or non-existent). Those that were public shared content directly related to fact checks only.

Factcheck.org is very thorough with providing sources and links for readers. In cases where the applicant has reached out to sources directly, the reader is provided with those details (name, date, etc.) as well.

The applicant uses primary sources in most cases; in some cases, experts are brought in a secondary sources to explain a claim (as with many of the fact checks on vaccines and COVID-19).

In each of the fact checks, the authors include multiple sources of evidence to establish their conclusion. For example, in one fact check on the VAERS database, the author provides 18 sources for the reader (with full citations): https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/scicheck-benefits-outweigh-risks-of-pediatric-covid19-vaccine-contrary-to-posts-misusing-vaers-data/

The assessor would like to note, though, that only 4 out of 10 fact checks provided by the applicant included a bibliography with full citation information (the additional 10 that the assessor selected all had bibliographies). A consistent use of citation practices would be beneficial to readers so the assessor recommends this become a regular practice for all fact checks.

Sources used were always given relevant credentials, affiliations, etc. The assessor did not note any instances where an apparent interest of a sources would have influenced the accuracy of the information they provided.

We are a fact-checking project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. We inform readers of our status on the "Our Mission" page: https://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

The relationship with the Annenberg Public Policy Center is clearly stated on the website.

Our funding page provides quarterly and annual information on our funding sources: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

Our mission page provides information on the legal status of our organization: https://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

It is also available on the university's donation page for FactCheck.org: https://giving.aws.cloud.upenn.edu/fund?fastStart=simpleForm&program=ANS&fund=602014

The donation page states that FactCheck.org is a project of University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. "The University of Pennsylvania is a 501(c)3 organization and your contribution is deductible from U.S. federal income taxes to the full extent allowed by law," the page says.

(We link to that donation page several times on our website.)

Clear funding and legal details of the org available on multiple pages.

Our organizational structure can be found on "Our Staff" page, which includes titles indicating those in charge of editorial decisions: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/

The FactCheck.org director is in charge of all editorial content and reports to the Annenberg Public Policy Center director. 

The organizational structure is very transparent and the roles and editorial process are clearly explained in relation to the staff.

"Our Staff" page includes names, titles and professional bio information: https://www.factcheck.org/our-staff/

The provided page details the professional biography of all those who play a significant part in its editorial output.

We provide several links on our website where we encourage users to contact us.

At the top of our homepage, we have a drop down menu called "ASK A QUESTION," which provides links for readers who want to submit questions for Ask SciCheck and Ask FactCheck.

The links:

https://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/

https://www.factcheck.org/askscicheck/

At the top of our homepage, the "About Us" drop down menu includes a link on how to contact us: https://www.factcheck.org/about/contact-us/

The "Contact Us" link also appears at the bottom of every page, linking to a page where we provide our address, phone number and the editor's email address.

We also provide readers access to contact us with corrections. We state our policy on the homepage and provide a link to our "Request a Correction" page:  https://www.factcheck.org/request-a-correction/

Users are encouraged to communicate with the editorial team through multiple avenues.

Our Process: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

The methodology for completing fact checks is detailed on the provided page.

The claims checked within the 20 fact checks all deal with issues in the public, mostly that related to politics and public health. The reach and importance of those topics in particular seems significant and aligns with their mission.

In each of the fact checks analyzed, there is substantial evidence provided that supports the conclusion of the author. Additionally, the authors link to original statements and sources for claims that they deem incorrect or problematic. For example, in a fact check on statements from President Biden, the author notes:

"On more than one occasion — including in his Aug. 18 interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News and his address to the nation on Aug. 16 — the president has overstated the size of the Afghan military." (from https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/factchecking-bidens-statements-about-afghanistan/)

Not only is the interview linked to, but the use of language like "overstated" shows attention to nuance and detail (that the author goes on to unpack in the article). 

While many of the fact checks focus on President Biden or on conspiracy theories about the pandemic, there is nonetheless a consistent standard of evidence used when evaluating claims from or about Biden or conspiracy theorists/theories. We can see in this article specifically that the applicant spends equal time on both President Biden and President Trump: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/the-whoppers-of-2020/

Many of the conspiracy theory fact checks on COVID-19 demonstrate how the organization does not unduly focus on one side or the other given that such conspiracy theories have appeal to those on both the far right and the far left (as with the public outcry over VAERS data: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-viral-posts-misuse-vaers-data-to-make-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccines/)

While many fact checks center on public claims that do no require verification from a primary source, the applicant still seeks out interviews with sources as needed and explains to the reader the details of those efforts. We see that in examples like: " Malone did not reqond to our request for comment" (https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distorts-facts-on-covid-19-vaccine-approval-liability/) and "We asked Ruby for evidenc of her claims, but she didn't provide any" ( https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/scicheck-video-spreads-bogus-claims-about-plane-crashes-and-covid-19-vaccines/) 

As mentioned above, we have a drop-down menu at the top of our home page called "ASK A QUESTION," which provides links for readers who want to submit questions for Ask SciCheck and Ask FactCheck. We started Ask FactCheck in 2007, and Ask SciCheck in 2017.

Our stories generated by readers can be found here:

https://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/

https://www.factcheck.org/askscicheck/

Most questions now are about viral social media content, and those questions are answered by staff members assigned to debunk viral misinformation. Those stories can be found here:

https://www.factcheck.org/fake-news/

We also directly answer questions to readers via email.  

We also started a newsletter this year that includes a feature we call "Reply All," which answers one reader question each week. Readers can subscribe to our free weekly newsletter here: https://www.factcheck.org/subscribe/

Readers and users are invited to use multiple formats to send claims for checking - some topics allow readers to see what questions/claims come up regularly in the "ask factcheck" and "ask scicheck" sections. They also have staffers devoted to online misinformation specifically.

Our corrections policy can be found in two places on our home page. It can be found in the "Our Process" page. To make it easy for readers to request corrections, we also provide an option in the "About Us" drop down menu at the top of the home page that says "Request a Correction," and links to this page providing instructions on requesting a correction: https://www.factcheck.org/request-a-correction/

The corrections policy is clear and accessible.

The policy is adhered to throughout the factchecks -the assessor observed notes of two kinds in the sample:

Updates:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-viral-posts-misuse-vaers-data-to-make-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccines/

Clarifications:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-ongoing-clinical-trials-will-decide-whether-or-not-ivermectin-is-safe-effective-for-covid-19/ 

Our policy is to immediately correct errors as soon as they are brought to our attention -- sometimes from readers, but also from our sources and staffers. Our "about us" tab at the top of our homepage provides a drop-down menu list, including "Request a correction," which provides readers with a link to the email address we use only for corrections and appeals of our Facebook ratings. If the correction is material to the story, we will put a short note at the top with an anchor link to the full correction. 

In the first Biden-Trump campaign, we made a mistake in a Sept. 30, 2020 article, when writing about stock market gains by the wealthy during the pandemic. Biden said, "The billionaires have gotten much more wealthy, by a tune of over $300 to $400 billion more, just since COVID.” We incorrectly wrote that Biden's was likely referring to a May 21 study by two liberal advocacy groups that didn't support his claim. (We had written about the study once before.) However, the next day the campaign told us Biden was referring to its own analysis of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which we found did support his statement. We removed that section of the article, placed a note at the top of the story saying the story had been correct and provided an anchor link that brought the reader directly to the full correction. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/factchecking-the-first-trump-biden-debate/#correction-oct-1

On July 8, we wrote that Pat Nixon was the first first lady to visit a combat zone, citing the National First Ladies’ Library as our source. The next day we corrected the story after a reader correctly pointed out to us that Eleanor Roosevelt visited combat zones during World War II. We thanked the reader in the correction for bringing the error to our attention.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/second-ladies-in-combat-zones/

Factcheck.org's examples of corrections indicate their quickness in responding to mistakes and their transparency in sharing such corrections with readers.

"Our Process" page explains our relationship with the IFCN and provides a link to the IFCN complaints page: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

Required information provided on linked page.

This does not apply to FactCheck.org, which is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.