We are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the nonprofit University of Pennsylvania. We were created in 2003 exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking, and remain exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.

Our affiliation with UPenn's Annenberg Public Policy Center is noted 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/

I confirm that FactCheck.org's legal status and information are available on its website, which I visited at http://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/. As such, I mark Criteria 1.1 compliant. 

1. FactCheck.org was founded in 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 primary 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 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 the director is not available, and the deputy managing editor. We also have a science editor who assigns, edits and writes health and science stories for our expanding SciCheck project. 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, science 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 articles on social media misinformation and 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, nonprofits and other organizations, and seminars held by media 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. We also fact-check social media dis/misinformation, and we have a growing project to fact-check health and science dis/misinformation - a feature we call SciCheck. 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, such as COVID-19 and major pieces of legislation, 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 2024 presidential election and key U.S. Senate races, which will require covering presidential and vice-presidential debates, the party conventions, campaign speeches and TV ads. We also will write about social media dis/misinformation We published more than 300 articles and (some) videos in the last 12 months, from February 2023 through January 2024, or about six per week. Attached is a spreadsheet with evidence that we have published at least one article per week.

An archive of all of our stories can be found here: https://www.factcheck.org/archives/and health issues, such as COVID-19, maternal health, reproductive health, childhood vaccines and climate change. As always, we also write about public policy initiatives being considered by Congress.

FactCheck.org has addressed each of the four points in Criteria 1.2 adequately. As such, I mark this item compliant. 

We published more than 300 articles and (some) videos in the last 12 months, from February 2023 through January 2024, or about six per week. Attached is a spreadsheet with evidence that we have published an average of at least one a week.

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

I reviewed the spreadsheet, which categorizes fact checks by "lead topic," and I have also reviewed fact checks published over the last several months. I verified the topics include public health, the environment, politics, and government. I assess Criteria 1.3 as compliant. A complete list of the fact checks I reviewed is included in the next item. 

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

I reviewed a dozen articles/fact checks published between November 2023 and the first week of February 2024. They are listed below by date and headline. 

February 2, 2024: Posts Sling Baseless Claims at Judge in Defamation Case Against Trump

February 2: 2024: Online Posts Share Altered Photo of Taylor Swift With Bogus Political Sign

February 2, 2024: Biden Makes False Claim About Jan. 6 Capitol Attack

January 25, 2024: Biden's Numbers, January 2024 Update 

January 12, 2024: Tucker Carlson Video Spreads Falsehoods on COVID-19 Vaccines, WHO Accord

January 11, 2024: FactChecking Trump's Iowa Town Hall 

December 14, 2023: GOP Misleading Claims in Biden Impeachment Investigation

December 7, 2023: FactChecking the Fourth GOP Primary Debate

December 5, 2023: Biden Spins the Facts in Campaign Speech

December 4, 2023: Post Misrepresents Condition of Israeli Hostages Released by Hamas

December 1, 2023: FactChecking DeSantis-Newsom Debate

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

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 the 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. We note on our funding page that Facebook has no control over our editorial decisions. WWe 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: 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/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/https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/e 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.”

I confirm financial information is transparent. An example online under the headline "Our Funding" is stated as: "Prior to fiscal 2010, we were supported entirely by three sources: funds from the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s own resources (specifically an endowment created in 1993 by the Annenberg Foundation at the direction of the late Walter Annenberg, and a 1995 grant by the Annenberg Foundation to fund APPC’s Washington, D.C., base); additional funds from the Annenberg Foundation; and grants from the Flora Family Foundation." Additionally: "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, which provides funding as part of Facebook’s initiative to debunk viral deceptions, and Google, which provided a one-time grant to support our COVID-19 coverage in 2020. Neither corporation seeks nor is given any control over our editorial decisions. Our policy is to disclose the identity of any donor who contributes $1,000 or more. We also disclose the total amount, average amount and number of individual donations." 

As such, I mark Criteria 1.5 as compliant. 

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/

We fact-check the statements of major U.S. politicians, answer reader questions, debunk viral deceptions, correction health and science dis/misinformation, and write Q&As and Guides on important public policy and health issues. 

When selecting material to write about, we seek to devote an equal amount of time reviewing transcripts of statements made by Republicans and Democrats. We do that by reviewing statements they make in the same venues -- TV ads, interviews, speeches and press conferences.

Visit our website for more about our process: https://www.factcheck.org/our-process/

The 10 examples below illustrate fact-checks involving political claims made in TV ads, interviews and speeches. I also included examples of a Q&A and Ask SciCheck.

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

FactChecking the State of the Union: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/02/factchecking-the-state-of-the-union-4/

Q&A on RSV Maternal Vaccine and Antibody Candidates to Protect Infants: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-qa-on-rsv-vaccine-and-antibody-candidates-to-protect-infants/

Dueling Ads: Trump and DeSantis on Social Security and Medicare: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/dueling-ads-trump-and-desantis-on-social-security-and-medicare/

No Proven Health Risks from Aspartame, But Also No Proven Benefits: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/no-proven-health-risks-from-aspartame-but-also-no-proven-benefits/

Thermography Is No Substitute for Mammograms, Contrary to Facebook Post’s Advice: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/07/scicheck-thermography-is-no-substitute-for-mammograms-contrary-to-facebook-posts-advice/

FactChecking Trump’s Rally, Fox Interview: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/factchecking-trumps-rally-fox-interview/

FactChecking Ron DeSantis’ Presidential Announcement: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/05/factchecking-ron-desantis-presidential-announcement/

Biden’s Tax Rate Comparison for Billionaires and Schoolteachers: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/02/bidens-tax-rate-comparison-for-billionaires-and-schoolteachers/

Biden’s Numbers, October 2023 Update: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/bidens-numbers-october-2023-update/

RFK Jr.’s COVID-19 Deceptions: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/08/scicheck-rfk-jr-s-covid-19-deceptions/

Based on my review of the fact checks listed above, both major U.S. political parties and their leaders and fact checked and their statements held to the same standard. Additionally, related to health and scientific information, FactCheck.org cuts through the politics to try to provide its audience with relevant and accurate context and information. I rate Criteria 2.1 compliant. 

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/

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

Criteria 2.2 is compliant because any reasonable reader would understand FactCheck.org's process. For example, it states, "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 in the same venues." It provides the venues by which these leaders often provide their statements (ie. Sunday political shows) and how it then moves forward checking claims/points. 

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

To assess Criteria 2.3, I reviewed the December 5, 2023 item: Biden Spins the Facts in Campaign Speech

The piece opens by stating, "At a campaign reception in Denver, President Joe Biden distorted some of the facts and the position of his predecessor." It then lists several bullets points on a number of issues that had been "distorted." Following that list, FactCheck.org two staff members reported on the issues, which included inflation and deficits. I will specifically address these in the sourcing section, and related to nonpartisanship, I recommend compliance. 

For Criteria 2.4, I reviewed the January 11, 2024 work headlined: FactChecking Trump's Iowa Town Hall

As in the previous example, the writers state the issues and move through piece-by-piece with evidence to debunk the claims. This piece also turned to sources: "Trump falsely claimed that his administration 'would have started to pay down our debt' by selling U.S. energy to Europe and Asia, if not for the COVID-19 pandemic. One budget expert called the idea 'baffling.'" 

I rate this item compliant. 

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

I confirm the policy is accessible to the online audience and thorough. (I have attached it here.) In addition to its current staff, FactCheck.org also lists information about its past staffers. As such, I mark Criteria 2.5 compliant. 

Moving back to the item discussed in Criteria 2.3, Biden Spins the Facts in Campaign Speech uses a range of sources to fact check the claims. Sources included: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (hyperlinked from article), White House Council of Economic Advisers figures, Federal Reserve Bank, Joint Committee on Taxation, U.S. Treasury Department (chart included for visual on deficits), Trump's public statements, and the Department of Health and Human Services. The sources used provide historical context as well as figures and are easily understandable in the narrative. As such, I mark Criteria 3.1 compliant. 

Turning to the FactChecking Trump’s Iowa Town Hall piece, a diverse range of expert sources also were used. Figures from the U.S. Treasury were used as well as an email interview with a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Additionally, figures (with relevant context) were provided from the Energy Information Administration, the Congressional Budget Office and the peer-reviewed journal Science. Several claims made in this Trump Town Hall were what FactCheck.org called "repeats," and they list the claims and sources to debunk them. 

Given this, I recommend Criteria 3.2 as compliant. 

For Criteria 3.3, I reviewed the February 2, 2024 fact check: Posts Sling Baseless Claims at Judge in Defamation Case Against Trump. 

The same judge oversaw Donald Trump's 2024 defamation case and Jeffrey Epstein's 2021 sex trafficking cases. This piece starts with a "Quick Take," which explains, "Misinformation peddlers baselessly claim a judge who presided over the defamation case that ended with an $83 million verdict against former President Donald Trump is linked to sex trafficking, noting that the judge dismissed a case related to Jeffrey Epstein." Under "Full Story," fact checker Saranac Hale Spencer explained, "Now, in an effort to criticize the outcome of Trump’s trial, partisan misinformation peddlers are baselessly citing the earlier case as an indication that the judge was connected to Epstein in a nefarious way. There’s nothing to support that claim." (To debunk the baseless social media claims, a link to a conspiracy theorist, who has been written about before was also briefly mentioned.) 

Additionally, Spencer's sources included links to the nomination and judicial record of the judge with hyperlinks Federal Judicial Center documents/records; the court cases themselves with links; Cornell Law Schools' Legal Information Institute. 

The sources are reputable and available to any reader. As such, I mark this item compliant. 

For Criteria 3.4, I reviewed the January 12, 2024 fact check Tucker Carlson Video Spreads Falsehoods on COVID-19 Vaccines, WHO Accord. 

More than two dozen sources were used to debunk a claim made by a podcaster on Tucker Carlson's social media show that Covid-19 vaccines killed 17 million people. Additionally, the guest said that the World Health Organization (WHO) wanted to take away “personal and national sovereignty.” To reveal the facts around the issue, fact checker Kate Yandell used official government sources as well as peer-reviewed work from the scientific and medical communities. This one is particularly notable for its implications as Yandell noted, "...over time more and more Americans have come to incorrectly believe that the COVID-19 vaccines have killed large numbers of people."

Yandell turned to the WHO, which is assembling a "pandemic accord" to address these issues. (A person quoted by Carlson's guest has been discredited.) The Journal of the American Media Association was a source, and it is considered consistently one of the top three peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. Additionally, Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law director was interviewed by email. 

I judge this item compliant. 

We are a fact-checking project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. We inform readers of our status in several places on our website, including:

"Our Mission" page: https://www.factcheck.org/about/our-mission/

Our "Copyright Policy" page: https://www.factcheck.org/copyright-policy/

I recommend Criteria 4.1 as compliant as FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan fact-checking project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at UPenn. This relationship is clear. 

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/

Our legal status 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.)

Its funding and independence as a fact checking site are clearly articulated. As such, I mark Criteria 4.2 as compliant. 

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 director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, our parent organization. 

I mark Criteria 4.3 as compliant because FactCheck.org's organizational structure and editorial policies are clearly articulated and any reasonable person would be able to use the website and understand who is in charge and what people's various roles and responsibilities are. 

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

We also have a page for our current undergraduate fellows: https://www.factcheck.org/undergraduate-fellows/

The biographies of staff are available. I have included two here as an example. Bylines are on every fact check. 

Additionally, the site includes information for how fact checks are reviewed and written: "A fact-checker goes through the story line by line, word by word, to make sure that every fact is correct and every statement we make and conclusion we draw is accurate and based on the evidence. All of our stories contain hyperlinks to source material, so that readers can check our facts. By the time we publish, the story will have been reviewed in most cases by four people who were not involved in the writing and the reporting of that story: a line editor, copy editor, fact-checker and by the director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, Dr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a former dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania."

As such, I mark Criteria 4.4 compliant. 

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.

On our homepage we also explain our corrections policy and provide instructions on how to "Request a Correction" in the "About Us" drop-down menu: https://www.factcheck.org/request-a-correction/

We also have a weekly newsletter that includes a feature -- "Reply All" -- where we answer a question from a reader. Readers can subscribe to our weekly newsletter here: https://www.factcheck.org/subscribe/. We provide a link to our newsletter on our homepage. 

I confirm that the As FactCheck site is available. I also think it's useful and helpful to have this information: "Helpful hint: We may already have answered your question. You can find out quickly by searching for your question, browsing our Ask FactCheck archives and Debunking False Stories page, or checking Viral Spiral for our most frequently asked questions." 

As such, I mark Criteria 4.5 compliant. 

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

To assess Criteria 5.1, I reviewed the February 2: 2024 fact check Online Posts Share Altered Photo of Taylor Swift With Bogus Political Sign. An altered photo showed pop star Taylor Swift incorrectly endorsing Donald Trump and his baseless claims he won the 2020 presidential election.

For methodology, fact checker Alan Jaffe, explained that Swift has endorsed two Democratic U.S. Senate candidates in 2018 in an Instagram post. Two years later, Jaffe wrote, she endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket. The methodology to review the altered photograph shows the original, which was taken at an NFL game. She is not holding anything and the photograph is shown with its original credit by a Getty Images photographer. 

I mark this item compliant. 

The methodology for the Biden Spins the Facts in Campaign Speech posted December 5, 2023 explained that the president distorted some of the facts. Its methodology starts by stating when and where he made the speech and then it takes each of the issues where distortions were found. 

On Inflation, Biden's claims were unsupported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nor by the White House Council of Economic Advisors. On Deficits, FactCheck.org noted he could not claim that he reduced the national debt, which has increased. The fact check explained its use of figures from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Research Service. On Social Security and Medicaid, Biden claimed Trump is "pushing to cut" them. But, here FactCheck.org turned to public and social media statements Trump has made to show that he has not said those things. For context, the piece added, "In fact, some of Trump’s Medicare proposals were similar to cost-cutting measures that had been proposed by former President Barack Obama." 

I mark Criteria 5.2 compliant as this methodology is clear and easy to follow. 

For Criteria 5.3, I reviewed the December 14, 2023 work headlined GOP Misleading Claims in Biden Impeachment Investigation. For context, the piece written by Robert Farley begins: "House Republicans passed a resolution on Dec. 13 to formalize their impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. In attempts to build momentum for the vote, Republicans continued to present misleadingly incomplete information in service of the claim that Biden benefited from his family members’ 'influence peddling' with foreign businesses and governments." 

The methodology starts with an explanation of the vote and then moves to a discussion of the indictment against Hunter Biden. It explains how the mischaracterization took place, using a years-long record of news reports and bank records to fill in gaps left out of the House debate over the last few months. 

As such, I mark this item compliant.  

To assess Criteria 5.4, I reviewed the December 1, 2023 item headlined FactChecking DeSantis-Newsom Debate. The two took the stage for a debate run by Fox News and FactCheck.org explained in the first paragraph the men, "spun, mangled and exaggerated some of the facts on issues including COVID-19, migration, abortion, book bans and gasoline prices."

The aforementioned issues each received their own sections of the fact check with transcripts included and an explanation of why the characterizations said on stage were misleading or outright false. As an example, Newsom said DeSantis had "closed down your beaches" during Covid, which the Florida governor said was untrue. Florida beaches were closed. The fact check explained by outlining through a timeline of executive orders how Newsom was correct. (I've included a screen shot of the fact check.) 

Additionally, to undercut Newsom's claims that Californians were not leaving for Florida, U.S. Census figures were used to show that Florida had a two-year net gain of new residents. 

The piece also fact checks DeSantis' incorrect claim that a pregnancy has a "detectable heartbeat" at six weeks. The piece explains that is it "inaccurate for a couple of reasons" mainly because for 10 weeks medical terminology views the correct term as an embryo rather than a fetus, citing the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

Due to the thorough methodology fact checking both politicians, I mark this criteria as compliant. 

I reviewed the December 4, 2023 item Post Misrepresents Condition of Israeli Hostages Released by Hamas to assess Criteria 5.5. I rate this item compliant as the methodology is clear and included a variety of sources.

The piece begins with a "Quick Take," which said: "A post on social media misleadingly claims the freed Israelis “look like people finishing a vacation.” But news reports say many of the Israelis returned malnourished, injured and traumatized." It then moves to the "Full Story," which explained the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks that killed 1,200 Israelis. Another 240 were taken hostage. (It also noted more than 15,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war that followed.) This fact check focused on an X post/Instagram post that presented a "distorted view of the hostages' condition when they were freed." 

The methodology explained interviews from hostages that described violence and terrible conditions. Other interviews with released hostages quoted in the New York Times and CNN were used. Additionally, a University of Pennsylvania expert was consulted who said that to say they were on vacation is "ridiculous." 

As mentioned above, we have a drop-down menu at the top of our homepage 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 are emailed to readers who asked the questions. The stories can be found here:

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

We also directly answer questions to readers via email. We have four undergraduate fellows who help us read and respond to readers. 

We also have a newsletter 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/

I confirm the "Ask FactCheck page includes information about ways to contact the staff. It notes: "Ask FactCheck

Have a question? Email us at Editor@FactCheck.org.

If possible, let us know where you first heard the claim. And if you are asking about a suspicious viral email or story circulating on social media, forward a complete copy to us. Also, please include your full name, city and state." 

Going to About Us-->Our Process reveals thorough information about how and where FactCheck.org concentrates its efforts. As such, I mark Criteria 5.6 compliant. 

Our corrections policy can be found in two places on our homepage. 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 homepage that says "Request a Correction," and links to this page providing instructions on how to request a correction: https://www.factcheck.org/request-a-correction/

In addition, we include this on the "Our Process" page (with a hyperlink to the IFCN complaints page): If you believe we are in violation of the IFCN code of principles, you can file a complaint with the IFCN here.

I confirm the Corrections Policy is clear and easy-to-find (it is attached). As such, I mark Criteria 6.1 compliant. 

The corrections policy meets Criteria 6.2. 

Our policy is to immediately correct errors as soon as they are brought to our attention -- sometimes corrections come 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 -- appeals@factcheck.org -- we use for corrections and Facebook appeals. If the correction was prompted by a reader, then we will note that in our correction. 

Here are two examples of corrections made in the past 12 months: 

On May 29, 2023, a reader wrote to point out a mistake in our article, "Limited Evidence of a Link Between Acetaminophen and Autism or ADHD." The next day, we posted a correction that read: 

Correction, May 30: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that acetaminophen is an ingredient in oxycodone. Oxycodone is an opioid that is sometimes combined with acetaminophen. We thank the reader who brought this to our attention. 

Full story here: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/02/limited-evidence-of-a-link-between-acetaminophen-and-autism-or-adhd/

On Nov. 7, 2023, we received a lengthy email from a reader who raised a number of issues with a story that we did on mammograms. The author of the email cc'd several others, and one of those who was cc'd on the original email wrote to us on Nov. 8. The director, managing editor and science editor separately reviewed the emails and the evidence cited in the emails. We also re-read our story, focusing on the sections that were objectionable to the authors of the emails. The director and editors then held meetings to discuss the specific objections, the evidence provided in the emails and our response. As a result, we published a correction and a clarification on Nov. 10, 2023:

Clarification, Nov. 10: After publication, we received a few complaints about how we presented the risks and benefits of mammograms. After a review, we stand by our story. We have, however, added language to give a better understanding of the conclusions of the 2015 paper cited by March and explained that the paper’s author has criticized the COVID-19 vaccines.

Correction, Nov. 10: We misquoted the 2015 paper cited in the video, incorrectly saying that it said screening mammograms “should be avoided” instead of “should be abandoned.”

Full story here: https://www.factcheck.org/2023/11/scicheck-video-in-spanish-misleads-about-mammograms/

I confirm that corrections follow the policy and adhere to the IFCN standards. I mark Criteria 6.3 compliant. 

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

I confirm that FactCheck.org's status as an existing signatory and how people could communicate to IFCN are available online. As such, I mark Criteria 6.4 compliant. 

We are not a fact-checking unit of a media company. We are a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.