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/

Details about how the organization is legally registered and their relationship the UPenn's Annenberg Public Policy Center are clear and accessible on their site

Details about how the organization is legally registered and their relationship the UPenn's Annenberg Public Policy Center are clear and accessible on their site

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 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 misinformation, and we have a growing project to fact check misinformation about health and science - 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 upcoming 2024 presidential election, social media misinformation and health issues, such as COVID-19, maternal health, reproductive health, childhood vaccines and climate change, as well as the public policy initiatives being debated in what is now a divided Congress. 

The applicant appears to fulfill its mission of promoting public political and media literacy by dispelling misinformation. Factcheck.org is considered trustworthy and reputable and their track-record of providing evidence-based evaluations for the public make the organization one of the most well-respected by the public and media alike.

The US remains a country in political turmoil that is deeply divided along party lines. Along with the COVID-19 pandemic, issues related to police brutality, gun violence, climate change, debt and inflation, and more dominate political discourse and are often amplified on social media sites and serve as fodder for conspiracy theories as well.

Factcheck.org serves the US public within this context by providing resources and evaluations of claims that function as important tools for understanding different issues. As a fact-checking operation that is well-established and supported, it is well-positioned to fulfill its mission of serving the public in this way.

The applicant appears to fulfill its mission of promoting public political and media literacy by dispelling misinformation. Factcheck.org is considered trustworthy and reputable and their track-record of providing evidence-based evaluations for the public make the organization one of the most well-respected by the public and media alike.

The US remains a country in political turmoil that is deeply divided along party lines. Along with the COVID-19 pandemic, issues related to police brutality, gun violence, climate change, debt and inflation, and more dominate political discourse and are often amplified on social media sites and serve as fodder for conspiracy theories as well.

Factcheck.org serves the US public within this context by providing resources and evaluations of claims that function as important tools for understanding different issues. As a fact-checking operation that is well-established and supported, it is well-positioned to fulfill its mission of serving the public in this way.

We published about 345 articles and (some) videos in the last 12 months, from December 2021 through November 2022, or about seven per 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/

The applicant publishes well above the requirement

The applicant publishes well above the requirement

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

More than 75% of the fact checks sampled for analysis focused on claims related to the welfare of the public. A survey of the last three months of fact checks matched this finding as well.

More than 75% of the fact checks sampled for analysis focused on claims related to the welfare of the public. A survey of the last three months of fact checks matched this finding as well.

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, 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 receive funding from any government or political entities that would influence their content. The applicant explains how funding from Facebook and Google for their fact checking partnership does not influence editorial content and explains how all other donations about $1000 are disclosed.

The applicant does not receive funding from any government or political entities that would influence their content. The applicant explains how funding from Facebook and Google for their fact checking partnership does not influence editorial content and explains how all other donations about $1000 are disclosed.

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 (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 and speeches. I also included an example of a Q&A that we often do to provide information on important public policy issues of the day -- in this case on President Biden's gun control proposals.

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

FactChecking Trump’s Presidential Bid Announcement: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/11/factchecking-trumps-presidential-bid-announcement/

Ads Distort Oz’s Position on Abortion, Taxes and Social Security: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/ads-distort-ozs-position-on-abortion-taxes-and-social-security/

Biden’s Misleading Boast on Medicare Premium Drop: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/09/bidens-misleading-boast-on-medicare-premium-drop/

Sorting Out the Partisan Tax Spin on Inflation Reduction Act: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/sorting-out-the-partisan-tax-spin-on-inflation-reduction-act/

Noem’s Misleading Claim About Safety of Medication Abortion: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/07/noems-misleading-claim-about-safety-of-medication-abortion/

Evidence Gaps in ‘2000 Mules’: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/

Q&A on Biden’s Gun Proposals: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/qa-on-bidens-gun-proposals/

Biden’s Deficit Spin: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/04/bidens-deficit-spin/

FactChecking Trump’s CPAC Speech: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/02/factchecking-trumps-cpac-speech-3/

FactChecking Biden’s Press Conference: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/01/factchecking-bidens-press-conference/

In the sample of fact checks analyzed by the assessor, there appeared to be a consistent standard of evidence used in the fact checks regardless of who made the claim. Factcheck.org evaluated claims by both President Biden and President Trump and evaluates claims circulated by both left- and right-leaning outlets and individuals as well.

In the sample of fact checks analyzed by the assessor, there appeared to be a consistent standard of evidence used in the fact checks regardless of who made the claim. Factcheck.org evaluated claims by both President Biden and President Trump and evaluates claims circulated by both left- and right-leaning outlets and individuals as well.

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/

The applicant's process for fact checking claims as well as their focus on political discourse leads to a balance of fact checks between right- and left-leaning groups and individuals.

The applicant's process for fact checking claims as well as their focus on political discourse leads to a balance of fact checks between right- and left-leaning groups and individuals.

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

The applicant systematically provides details about source positions, affiliations and credentials. There were no observed instances where the interests of a source were not disclosed. 

The applicant systematically provides details about source positions, affiliations and credentials. There were no observed instances where the interests of a source were not disclosed. 

The applicant does not claim any political preference nor is there language used that favors one party over the other. There was only one noted moment of some editorializing regarding Trump's repetitive claims, but the comment was not inaccurate since it pointed to how the project has evaluated the same claims multiple times over the past several years.

The applicant does not claim any political preference nor is there language used that favors one party over the other. There was only one noted moment of some editorializing regarding Trump's repetitive claims, but the comment was not inaccurate since it pointed to how the project has evaluated the same claims multiple times over the past several years.

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. A randomized search of staffers did not reveal any political commentary on social media either.

The non-partisanship policy is clearly stated for staffers on their site. A randomized search of staffers did not reveal any political commentary on social media either.

The applicant provides clear information about sources and links to outside information or other relevant fact checks so that readers may easily locate information used in the articles.

The applicant provides clear information about sources and links to outside information or other relevant fact checks so that readers may easily locate information used in the articles.

In many cases, the writers interview original authors of research articles or individuals associated with relevant government bodies or corporations. As many of the claims are public claims, there is often not a need to go verify the claim itself with the speaker - in such cases, the use of secondary sources to evaluate the claim is important and well-executed.

In many cases, the writers interview original authors of research articles or individuals associated with relevant government bodies or corporations. As many of the claims are public claims, there is often not a need to go verify the claim itself with the speaker - in such cases, the use of secondary sources to evaluate the claim is important and well-executed.

In each fact check analyzed the assessor, the writers use multiple sources to develop their evaluation of each claim. While sources are always linked to, only in some cases do the writers provide a full bibliography as well.

In each fact check analyzed the assessor, the writers use multiple sources to develop their evaluation of each claim. While sources are always linked to, only in some cases do the writers provide a full bibliography as well.

Any affiliations or credentials of sources were always provided in the evaluated fact checks. There were no noted instances where the interests of a source would have influenced the accuracy of what they said.

Any affiliations or credentials of sources were always provided in the evaluated fact checks. There were no noted instances where the interests of a source would have influenced the accuracy of what they said.

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

Clearly stated relationship with the Annenberg Public Policy Center 

Clearly stated relationship with the Annenberg Public Policy Center 

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.)

Funding and legal information available across multiple pages

Funding and legal information available across 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 director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, our parent organization. 

Provided page details staff, organizational structure and editorial responsibilities

Provided page details staff, organizational structure and editorial responsibilities

"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/

Professional biographies provided on staff page

Professional biographies provided on staff page

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/'

We also started a weekly newsletter last year 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/

Multiple channels are provided to readers to communicate with the organization

Multiple channels are provided to readers to communicate with the organization

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

The methodology for fact checking is clearly described on the provided page.

The methodology for fact checking is clearly described on the provided page.

In the sample of fact checks evaluated by the assessor, the claims all dealt with issues relevant to the public. The majority of fact checks dealt with politics and public health and the writers demonstrate the importance of evaluating the selected claims by showing their impact and importance.

In the sample of fact checks evaluated by the assessor, the claims all dealt with issues relevant to the public. The majority of fact checks dealt with politics and public health and the writers demonstrate the importance of evaluating the selected claims by showing their impact and importance.

In the sample of fact checks evaluated by the assessor, substantial evidence is discussed by the writers that allow them to reach their conclusion about the claims. The writers provide links, sources and seek input from multiple sources throughout their work.

In the sample of fact checks evaluated by the assessor, substantial evidence is discussed by the writers that allow them to reach their conclusion about the claims. The writers provide links, sources and seek input from multiple sources throughout their work.

The assessor evaluated fact checks of claims of both Democrats and Republicans and found that a consistent standard for evidence was used across claims regardless of political affiliation.

The assessor evaluated fact checks of claims of both Democrats and Republicans and found that a consistent standard for evidence was used across claims regardless of political affiliation.

While the majority of claims analyzed by the fact checkers did not require verification from a primary source since they were public statements, the writers were thorough in triangulated public claims against existing data as well as interviews with secondary sources that could explain data in more detail. Across the fact check articles, the writers sought out interviews with researchers, staffers and other individuals that could speak to the veracity of claims.

While the majority of claims analyzed by the fact checkers did not require verification from a primary source since they were public statements, the writers were thorough in triangulated public claims against existing data as well as interviews with secondary sources that could explain data in more detail. Across the fact check articles, the writers sought out interviews with researchers, staffers and other individuals that could speak to the veracity of claims.

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 in two places:

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

https://www.factcheck.org/scicheck/

We also directly answer questions to readers via email.

We also started a newsletter last 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 have multiple avenues to engage with the project and are provided with a clear explanation of criteria for how claims are selected for analysis.

Readers have multiple avenues to engage with the project and are provided with a clear explanation of criteria for how claims are selected for analysis.

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/

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.

The corrections policy is clear and accessible.

The corrections policy is clear and accessible.

The policy is adhered to throughout the factchecks - in some cases, the authors provide updates, clarifications and corrections clearly at the end of articles as needed.

The policy is adhered to throughout the factchecks - in some cases, the authors provide updates, clarifications and corrections clearly at the end of articles as needed.

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.

After the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, we updated one of our stories -- "What Happens if Roe v. Wade Is Overturned?" -- but incorrectly said it was a 6-3 decision. The editor who added the update quickly realized the error and posted this correction:

Correction, June 24: We originally wrote that the court overruled Roe by a 6-3 decision. It was 5-4. The story with the correction is here: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-happens-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned/

On July 7, we posted a story about abortions that are medically necessary because of life-threatening pregnancy complications. The reporter gave an incorrect description of preeclampsia. A staff member reading the story the next day noticed the error. We corrected it  that day by saying:

Correction, July 8: We initially gave an incorrect description of preeclampsia.

Here is the link to that story: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/07/abortion-is-sometimes-medically-necessary-contrary-to-facebook-posts/

Examples provided demonstrate quick and transparent corrections for readers

Examples provided demonstrate quick and transparent corrections for 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/

Links to IFCN and explanation of complaints process in provided link

Links to IFCN and explanation of complaints process in provided link

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.