MediaWise is a nonprofit, nonpartisan project of The Poynter Institute. The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)3. The EIN for the organization is 59-1630423. You can view The Poynter Institute’s most-recent public financial disclosure form 990 at the bottom of the main MediaWise program page:

https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/

This information can also be found under "Our ownership & Disclosure of project funders" in our Editorial Standards. https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response.

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response.

1. MediaWise was originally created in 2018 with the intention of teaching 1 million teenagers how to sort fact from fiction online by the year 2020. To help achieve this original goal, MediaWise created the MediaWise Teen Fact-Checking Network (TFCN), creating fact-checks "For teens, by teens," among other educational and training programs. The exclusive purpose of TFCN is to create fact-checking content. TFCN is run by MediaWise/Poynter staff and includes teenagers spread across the U.S. that produce video fact-checks debunking viral claims they come across on their own social media feeds. TFCN fact-checks are unique in that they debunk misinformation while simultaneously teaching media literacy skills so the audience can then fact-check on their own. To reach our original target audience of teenagers, fact-checks were produced for social media, and have taken the shape of Instagram stories, Twitter threads, TikToks, Snapchat stories and YouTube videos.

2. Currently, the MediaWise team is made up of seven full-time employees: Alex Mahadevan, Director; Brittani Kollar, International Training Manager; Vanya Tsvetkova, Interactive Learning Designer; Kathleen Tobin, Youth Programming Manager; Laura Duclos, audience engagement editor; Salvador Rodriquez-Ruiz, Program Officer; and Kobe McCloud, International Intern. TFCN is managed and led by Tobin, and other team members contribute to fact-checking content creation, editing and production.

https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/

Members of the Teen Fact-Checking Network work with the MediaWise team for 5-6 months at a time and are paid per fact-check. Currently, 20 students are working on the project. However, the number of students varies. Teen fact-checkers are expected to pitch potential stories, fact-check and write social media scripts (which are heavily edited by a MediaWise staffer) and record the fact-check for social media use. We also have teens on staff whose sole job is to produce the videos. More than 100 students nationwide have participated in the TFCN program over the past five years.

https://www.poynter.org/teen-fact-checking-network/

 3. Being both a digital media literacy initiative and a fact-checking organization, MediaWise carries out a variety of activities. They include: producing social media video and text format fact-checks from the MediaWise Teen Fact-Checking Network; producing influencer-created content and partnered videos on YouTube and other platforms; teaching fact-checking and media literacy tips regularly through social media posts; monitoring and responding to misinformation trends across platforms; conducting in-person and virtual presentations and trainings across the U.S. for audiences of all ages; managing a network of MediaWise Campus Correspondents who teach digital literacy at college campuses all over the United States; and creating online educational courses and materials available on Poynter.org.

4. Over the course of the next year, MediaWise will be focused on fact-checking and teaching crucial digital media literacy skills to Americans of all ages, and scaling the impact of its work. In addition, MediaWise International is expanding the Teen Fact-Checking Network to Germany, Brazil and India. In 2023, we are focused on issues concerning vaccine misinformation, U.S. politics, climate change and a variety of social issues. 

MediaWise's work stands out as fact-checking organization targeting youth as their main audience. This comes to practice in the type of content they produce (social media oriented, video content next to textual fact-checks), and in their focus not only on fact-checks, but also on digital media literacy. Compliant.

MediaWise's work stands out as fact-checking organization targeting youth as their main audience. This comes to practice in the type of content they produce (social media oriented, video content next to textual fact-checks), and in their focus not only on fact-checks, but also on digital media literacy. Compliant.

MediaWise has published on average one to two fact-checks a week in the past 12 months. Because MediaWise takes an audience-first approach to fact-checking, our fact-checks live on social media, and have taken the shape of Instagram stories, Twitter threads, TikToks and YouTube videos. Text versions of some of these fact-checks can be found on Poynter's website.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2DPyDJLFycNPgPcH0jaeHw

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mediawise/?hl=en 

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise?lang=en

Twitter: https://twitter.com/mediawise

Poynter: https://www.poynter.org/teen-fact-checking-network/

Compliant - fact-check publication rate fits the requirement and verified on platforms attached. MediaWise's work stands out as fact-checking organization targeting youth as their main audience. This comes to practice in the type of content they produce (social media oriented, video content next to textual fact-checks), and in their focus not only on fact-checks, but also on digital media literacy.  

Compliant - fact-check publication rate fits the requirement and verified on platforms attached. MediaWise's work stands out as fact-checking organization targeting youth as their main audience. This comes to practice in the type of content they produce (social media oriented, video content next to textual fact-checks), and in their focus not only on fact-checks, but also on digital media literacy.  

As a fact-checking outlet focusing on younger audience, the issues covered fit it, touching wider societal/news subjects (climate change, military conflict, conspiracy theories) as well as the importance of media literacy and fact-checking by itself. Compliant.

Random sample:

Jan 26, 2023: The Good, Bad and Ugly about Wikipedia | Is This Legit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqrlMRvhkY4

Feb 25, 2023: How to Analyze Climate Claims by Finding Credible Sources | Is This Legit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkf9oxSBYhc

April 24, 2023: Does this video really show Lebanon launching missiles into north Israel?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7227157143760293163?lang=en

Jan 9, 2023: You probably knew that Elon musk bought Twitter recently, but did you hear a rumor about him also buying Snapchat?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7186664669241822506?lang=en

November 3, 2022: Will there actually be a purge in Illinois starting in 2023?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7161805363715558699?lang=en

April 24, 2023: The Denver airport: A conspiracy hotbed

https://twitter.com/Poynter/status/1653460091570384897

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/the-denver-airport-a-conspiracy-hotbed/

March 20, 2023: No, experts say, acid rain did not fall after Ohio train derailment

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/no-experts-say-acid-rain-did-not-fall-after-the-ohio-train-derailment/

February 9, 2023: No, Damar Hamlin’s mid-game collapse was not caused by the COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/no-damar-hamlins-mid-game-collapse-was-not-caused-by-the-covid-19-vaccine/

Jan 10, 2023: Corporate greenwashing: Is that big business as environmentally friendly as it seems?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/corporate-greenwashing-is-that-big-business-as-environmentally-friendly-as-it-seems/

December 5, 2022: Are these photos from the Arctic accurate?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-these-photos-from-the-arctic-accurate/

As a fact-checking outlet focusing on younger audience, the issues covered fit it, touching wider societal/news subjects (climate change, military conflict, conspiracy theories) as well as the importance of media literacy and fact-checking by itself. Compliant.

Random sample:

Jan 26, 2023: The Good, Bad and Ugly about Wikipedia | Is This Legit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqrlMRvhkY4

Feb 25, 2023: How to Analyze Climate Claims by Finding Credible Sources | Is This Legit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkf9oxSBYhc

April 24, 2023: Does this video really show Lebanon launching missiles into north Israel?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7227157143760293163?lang=en

Jan 9, 2023: You probably knew that Elon musk bought Twitter recently, but did you hear a rumor about him also buying Snapchat?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7186664669241822506?lang=en

November 3, 2022: Will there actually be a purge in Illinois starting in 2023?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7161805363715558699?lang=en

April 24, 2023: The Denver airport: A conspiracy hotbed

https://twitter.com/Poynter/status/1653460091570384897

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/the-denver-airport-a-conspiracy-hotbed/

March 20, 2023: No, experts say, acid rain did not fall after Ohio train derailment

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/no-experts-say-acid-rain-did-not-fall-after-the-ohio-train-derailment/

February 9, 2023: No, Damar Hamlin’s mid-game collapse was not caused by the COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/no-damar-hamlins-mid-game-collapse-was-not-caused-by-the-covid-19-vaccine/

Jan 10, 2023: Corporate greenwashing: Is that big business as environmentally friendly as it seems?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/corporate-greenwashing-is-that-big-business-as-environmentally-friendly-as-it-seems/

December 5, 2022: Are these photos from the Arctic accurate?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-these-photos-from-the-arctic-accurate/

MediaWise has no such relationships. You can find our current list of partners and supporters here: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/ 

More information regarding our funding and our policy regarding the disclosure of project funders can be found in our Editorial Standards under our MediaWise Ethics Policies: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

Compliant, as described. "Compliant, as described.

Excerpt from the relevant section in MediaWise's Editorial Standards page, that exemplifies their transparency and policy on these matters:

""Sources of funding that contribute more than five percent of total MediaWise revenues in the previous calendar year will be listed here:

Google News Initiative

Google

Meta

TikTok

MediaWise is a non-partisan organization. It has not accepted donations from political parties, elected officials or candidates running for public office."""

Compliant, as described. "Compliant, as described.

Excerpt from the relevant section in MediaWise's Editorial Standards page, that exemplifies their transparency and policy on these matters:

""Sources of funding that contribute more than five percent of total MediaWise revenues in the previous calendar year will be listed here:

Google News Initiative

Google

Meta

TikTok

MediaWise is a non-partisan organization. It has not accepted donations from political parties, elected officials or candidates running for public office."""

MediaWise has not received funding from political sources.

 Compliant, as described - see previous criteria for further reference.

 Compliant, as described - see previous criteria for further reference.

The MediaWise project is a nonpartisan initiative dedicated to taking a balanced approach to news and editorial content, with the primary objective of presenting the facts. MediaWise is dedicated to fact-checking both major U.S. political parties, holding both to the same standards. Our Editorial Standards can be found here: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

Below is an assortment of links to fact-checks we have posted across a variety of social media platforms:

Claims from liberal/left-leaning voices

1. YouTube: Gun Laws and Book Bans: Finding Missing Context Fact-check of a tweet from a liberal woman who is part of a gun control group. Rating: Needs context

2. YouTube: Viral moments in political campaigns? Or manipulated media? Fact check of a left-leaning post, a doctored photo that shows Oz standing with supporters, one of whom has a sign turned to the side to say NO. Rating: Not legit

3. YouTube: Weekly wages the same for 50 years? Fact-check of statistics in a tweet from Sen. Sanders assistant. Rating: Not Legit

4. TikTok: Texas Book Bans Fact-check of a claim in a tweet that said school districts have banned Maus, Handmaid's Tale and 1984, but not Mein Kampf. Rating: Not legit.

5. TikTok: Do women have to take pregnancy tests before leaving the state of Texas? Rating: Not legit

Claims from conservative/right-leaning voices

1. TikTok: Is this American Girl Doll self-help book aimed at 3-year-olds? Instagram post says the book tells kids as young as 3 how to change gender. Rating: Needs context.

2. YouTube: Viral moments in political campaigns? Or manipulated media? Fact-check of right-leaning post of a video showing Fetterman having difficulty speaking. Rating: Not Legit

3. YouTube: Inflation (F)Act Check — Is This Legit? Fact-check of Republican senator’s tweet saying the inflation Reduction Act will “decrease energy production.” Rating: Not Legit

4. YouTube: ​​Journalistic Meat or Fraudulent Filler — What is Pink Slime Journalism?⎜Is This Legit? Fact-check of claim on a right-leaning “news” website that says a school district in Chicago will give students grades “based on their race.” Rating: Not Legit

5. TikTok: Is Biden sending meth pipes to underserved communities? Fact-check of a claim that Marco Rubio said “Biden is sending crack pipes and meth pipes to underserved communities.” Rating: Not Legit

As the examples provided by the applicant show, the MW project proves to be nonpartisan, covering and debunking claims from both sides of the political map while applying the same fact checking process. Compliant.

As the examples provided by the applicant show, the MW project proves to be nonpartisan, covering and debunking claims from both sides of the political map while applying the same fact checking process. Compliant.

The MediaWise project prioritizes choosing fact checks that focus on issues and news that are of immediate relevance and interest to our audience, looking for topics that are impacting and affecting them. Many of our fact-checks focus on content that has gone viral and potentially impacted the most people. The MediaWise project is nonpartisan and does not support any one candidate, party or issue. We do our best to maintain political balance in the number of fact-checks we do on each side. While it is important to tap into trending and relevant topics and conversations, it’s also important to be sure we are offering equal scrutiny and criticism across the political spectrum. This is important to our program mission that we make digital media literacy and fact-checking education accessible and inclusive for all, and not alienating audiences, no matter their personal political leanings.

Our story selection process and political neutrality policy can be found in our Editorial Standards, here: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/editorial-standards-and-ethics-policy/ 

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response and in the link. "Compliant, as also verified in practice in the reviewed fact checks. From their website's Editorial Standards page:

""The MediaWise project prioritizes choosing fact checks that focus on issues and news that are of immediate relevance and interest to our audience, looking for topics that are impacting and affecting them. In most cases, the claims we fact-check have already gone viral on a social media platform.

Non-partisan: MediaWise is a nonpartisan initiative dedicated to taking a balanced approach to news and editorial content, with the primary objective of presenting the facts."""

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response and in the link. "Compliant, as also verified in practice in the reviewed fact checks. From their website's Editorial Standards page:

""The MediaWise project prioritizes choosing fact checks that focus on issues and news that are of immediate relevance and interest to our audience, looking for topics that are impacting and affecting them. In most cases, the claims we fact-check have already gone viral on a social media platform.

Non-partisan: MediaWise is a nonpartisan initiative dedicated to taking a balanced approach to news and editorial content, with the primary objective of presenting the facts."""

Compliant.

For the selected sample of fact checks reviewed, see Criteria 1.4.

The applicant discloses and analyzes relevant interests of sources it is using.

One example from the sampled fact-checks:

April 24, 2023: The Denver airport: A conspiracy hotbed

https://twitter.com/Poynter/status/1653460091570384897

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/the-denver-airport-a-conspiracy-hotbed/

In this fact-check article, MW quotes the spokesperson of the airport, which debunks the conspiracy theories about the airport. At the same time, one paragraph later, the article mentions that the airport itself seems to have ""embraced them, using the theories as a marketing statregy"". While the subject is not politically contested and this mention of the airport's ""embrace"" isn't central to the article, it shows a critical analysis of a central source mentioned in the article."

Compliant.

For the selected sample of fact checks reviewed, see Criteria 1.4.

The applicant discloses and analyzes relevant interests of sources it is using.

One example from the sampled fact-checks:

April 24, 2023: The Denver airport: A conspiracy hotbed

https://twitter.com/Poynter/status/1653460091570384897

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/the-denver-airport-a-conspiracy-hotbed/

In this fact-check article, MW quotes the spokesperson of the airport, which debunks the conspiracy theories about the airport. At the same time, one paragraph later, the article mentions that the airport itself seems to have ""embraced them, using the theories as a marketing statregy"". While the subject is not politically contested and this mention of the airport's ""embrace"" isn't central to the article, it shows a critical analysis of a central source mentioned in the article."

As reflected by the reviewed fact checks, MW is not supporting any party/political candidate, and its only declared policy is promoting media literacy and fact-based public discourse. The sampled fact-checks, chosen randomly, seem to focus mostly on viral content that's not politica, and use them as a ground to promote media literacy and critical analysis. Compliant. 

As reflected by the reviewed fact checks, MW is not supporting any party/political candidate, and its only declared policy is promoting media literacy and fact-based public discourse. The sampled fact-checks, chosen randomly, seem to focus mostly on viral content that's not politica, and use them as a ground to promote media literacy and critical analysis. Compliant. 

The MediaWise project team – including staff, interns, and members of the TFCN and other youth programs – is not permitted to:

- Campaign, rally, march or fundraise for a political party or candidate;

- Donate to a candidate or campaign, political action group or political party;

- Express political views and commentary on social media, either in support of or opposing any candidate, political party, position or issue.

However, the MediaWise team is encouraged to participate in the political process as voters and U.S. citizens.

Our policy regarding the MediaWise staff and political neutrality can be found in our Editorial Standards, under "Political neutrality and staff." https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

"Compliant, as described in the applicant's response and as present in these quotes from the Editorial Standards page:

(Editorial Pilliars section)

Non-partisan: MediaWise is a nonpartisan initiative dedicated to taking a balanced approach to news and editorial content, with the primary objective of presenting the facts.

(Ownership & Disclosure of project funders section)

MediaWise is a non-partisan organization. It has not accepted donations from political parties, elected officials or candidates running for public office.

(Bottom strip describing MediaWise on all website pages)

MediaWise is a nonpartisan, nonprofit initiative of The Poynter Institute"

"Compliant, as described in the applicant's response and as present in these quotes from the Editorial Standards page:

(Editorial Pilliars section)

Non-partisan: MediaWise is a nonpartisan initiative dedicated to taking a balanced approach to news and editorial content, with the primary objective of presenting the facts.

(Ownership & Disclosure of project funders section)

MediaWise is a non-partisan organization. It has not accepted donations from political parties, elected officials or candidates running for public office.

(Bottom strip describing MediaWise on all website pages)

MediaWise is a nonpartisan, nonprofit initiative of The Poynter Institute"

"Compliant - all fact checks covered included references to the sources of all evidence used in them. For selected sample, see section 1.4.

One example: April 24, 2023: Does this video really show Lebanon launching missiles into north Israel?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7227157143760293163?lang=en

In the video, MW's Fellow shows his process of fact-checking the examined video and the sources he used, (1) looking for relevant keywords to get context on the events, (2) reverse image-searching to find the original source of the explosion video, and by that (3) finding the original explosion from 2020, debunking the examined claim, ranking it as ""Not Legit""."

"Compliant - all fact checks covered included references to the sources of all evidence used in them. For selected sample, see section 1.4.

One example: April 24, 2023: Does this video really show Lebanon launching missiles into north Israel?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7227157143760293163?lang=en

In the video, MW's Fellow shows his process of fact-checking the examined video and the sources he used, (1) looking for relevant keywords to get context on the events, (2) reverse image-searching to find the original source of the explosion video, and by that (3) finding the original explosion from 2020, debunking the examined claim, ranking it as ""Not Legit""."

"As reviewed in the sampled fact-checks, MW uses a mixture of sources of evidence. Given their focus on viral content, a lot of times MW's methods rely on searching for the root origin of an image/video, using techniques like reverse image search - in what (at least in my mind) constitutes as a primary source. I am mentioning this because when we usually think of ""primary source"" we refer to fact-checks that are focused on specific traceable claims/statements, whereas in viral content the nature of sourcing information is different. In addition, frequently MW fact-checks also use complementing secondary sources, but in such cases it is usually vetted/reliable media outlets, and usually when they quote an official spokesperson/person of interest.

Examples:

December 5, 2022: Are these photos from the Arctic accurate?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-these-photos-from-the-arctic-accurate

https://youtu.be/cXxOXP57fv8

(1) Reverse image search of the reviewed photos

(2) A National Geographic article featuring Christian Åslund, a Swedish photojournalist that is credited to the recent photos reviewed

(3) A Snopes (established fact-checking website) article covering the same topic"

"As reviewed in the sampled fact-checks, MW uses a mixture of sources of evidence. Given their focus on viral content, a lot of times MW's methods rely on searching for the root origin of an image/video, using techniques like reverse image search - in what (at least in my mind) constitutes as a primary source. I am mentioning this because when we usually think of ""primary source"" we refer to fact-checks that are focused on specific traceable claims/statements, whereas in viral content the nature of sourcing information is different. In addition, frequently MW fact-checks also use complementing secondary sources, but in such cases it is usually vetted/reliable media outlets, and usually when they quote an official spokesperson/person of interest.

Examples:

December 5, 2022: Are these photos from the Arctic accurate?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-these-photos-from-the-arctic-accurate

https://youtu.be/cXxOXP57fv8

(1) Reverse image search of the reviewed photos

(2) A National Geographic article featuring Christian Åslund, a Swedish photojournalist that is credited to the recent photos reviewed

(3) A Snopes (established fact-checking website) article covering the same topic"

Compliant, as reviewed in the sampled fact checks. For further reference, see the section above: the arctic pictures were checked against (1) reverse image search; (2) an article reviewing the works of the photographer of the recent picture; (3) a fact-checking article covering the topic at large.

Compliant, as reviewed in the sampled fact checks. For further reference, see the section above: the arctic pictures were checked against (1) reverse image search; (2) an article reviewing the works of the photographer of the recent picture; (3) a fact-checking article covering the topic at large.

Compliant, as reviewed in the sampled fact-checks. For further reference, ee Criteria 2.3 assessment that covers the Denver Airport conspiracy theories: the article covers both the interests of (1) the original persona making the claims (i.e. not experts on the Denver Airport, but are trying to sell personal merchandise to their followers, etc.), and (2) of the Denver Airport itself finding the theories amusing and using them as a marketing strategy.

Compliant, as reviewed in the sampled fact-checks. For further reference, ee Criteria 2.3 assessment that covers the Denver Airport conspiracy theories: the article covers both the interests of (1) the original persona making the claims (i.e. not experts on the Denver Airport, but are trying to sell personal merchandise to their followers, etc.), and (2) of the Denver Airport itself finding the theories amusing and using them as a marketing strategy.

We are a fact-checking section of a parent organization, as evidenced by the MediaWise homepage based on the website of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/

Compliant, as a fact-checking section of the Poynter Institute.

Compliant, as a fact-checking section of the Poynter Institute.

Each source of funding accounting for 5% or more of MediaWise's total revenue from the previous financial year is disclosed in our editorial standards, under “Disclosure of project funders" https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/ as well as at the bottom of our main program page: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/ .

MediaWise is a non-profit project of the Poynter Institute. This is stated on our home page under “Our Supporters." https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/

This information is also listed in our Editorial Standards, which are also linked on our home page. https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/ 

Compliant, as reviewed in the sampled fact-checks. For further reference, ee Criteria 2.3 assessment that covers the Denver Airport conspiracy theories: the article covers both the interests of (1) the original persona making the claims (i.e. not experts on the Denver Airport, but are trying to sell personal merchandise to their followers, etc.), and (2) of the Denver Airport itself finding the theories amusing and using them as a marketing strategy.

Compliant, as reviewed in the sampled fact-checks. For further reference, ee Criteria 2.3 assessment that covers the Denver Airport conspiracy theories: the article covers both the interests of (1) the original persona making the claims (i.e. not experts on the Denver Airport, but are trying to sell personal merchandise to their followers, etc.), and (2) of the Denver Airport itself finding the theories amusing and using them as a marketing strategy.

Each fact-check written by a youth fact-checker goes through a rigorous editing process with a member of the MediaWise team. Student fact-checkers will research, report and write their fact-check and give the claim a rating. A member of the MediaWise team will thoroughly edit the script, confirm its accuracy and either agree with the rating, or suggest a new rating.

The edited script will be sent to a second MediaWise staff member for another round of edits. When a fact-check rating can not be decided on, the fact-check will be sent to MediaWise Director Alex Mahadevan for final approval.

Once the script has been approved, the youth fact-checker will record and film the fact-check. Each video fact-check is reviewed by a MediaWise staff member and given feedback before being posted to social media. Once the fact-check has been approved, it will be posted to social media by a MediaWise staff member on the student’s behalf.

This information can be found in our Editorial Standards under “Story Selection and Rating Overview."

https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response. The Editorial Oversight section in the Editorial Standards page matches the described response.

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response. The Editorial Oversight section in the Editorial Standards page matches the described response.

MediaWise employees who play a significant part in the organization's editorial output can be found on our homepage under “Our Staff.” Clicking each staff photograph will bring you to the professional biographies of each. https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/

 

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response: MW's homepage features the bios of their permanent staff, as well as links to expanded pages about them.

Compliant, as described in the applicant's response: MW's homepage features the bios of their permanent staff, as well as links to expanded pages about them.

Because MediaWise fact-checks are produced for social media, we encourage our audience to reach out to us directly through the platforms. On our main website, we also encourage our followers to use the hashtag #IsThisLegit to flag us on posts they need help checking out. Our audience is also encouraged to reach out to our editorial team through an email address provided. See, follow @MediaWise: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/ 

Compliant, as present in MW's social media and website.

Compliant, as present in MW's social media and website.

Our fact checks strive to be engaging by focusing on teaching media literacy skills while telling a good story. We want our audience to come away with tangible tips, skills and advice for how they can identify reliable and unreliable information online.

How we choose claims to fact-check

The MediaWise project prioritizes choosing fact-checks that focus on issues and news that are of immediate relevance and interest to our audience, looking for topics that are impacting and affecting them. In most cases, the claims we fact-check have already gone viral on a social media platform.

MediaWise youth fact-checkers look for claims that have gone viral on their own social media feeds. We also encourage our audience to submit claims to us by flagging possible misinformation on social media through the use of our hashtag, #IsThisLegit. Readers can also submit claims they would like us to fact-check via email to mwtips@poynter.org.

While we would love to be able to check out every reader-submitted claim, the MediaWise team will prioritize claims that have garnered the attention of a lot of people on social media. MediaWise cannot fact-check opinions, predictions or promises.

Political neutrality in content:

The MediaWise project is politically neutral and does not support any one candidate, party or issue. We will do our best to maintain political balance in the number of fact-checks we do on each side. While it is important to tap into trending and relevant topics and conversations, it’s also important to be sure we are offering equal scrutiny and criticism across the political spectrum.

It’s important to note that our fact-checking is not necessarily a reflection of the number of misleading stories out there supporting one side or another. We will strive to maintain balance across our own content in order to continue reaching viewers across the political spectrum and strive not to alienate anyone by fact-checking more of one side of the aisle over the other.

Ratings:

For every fact-check story, a rating is included that tells our audience what we concluded after fact-checking a claim. MediaWise fact-checks typically fall into these ratings categories:

Legit. The claim, photo or video is real and the information is accurate.

Mostly legit. The claim, photo or video is mostly true, but some small details are incorrect.

Needs context. The claim, photo or video does not have all of the information needed to be fully understood and assessed.

Mixed bag. The claim, photo or video is roughly half true/ half false.

Mostly not legit. The claim, photo or video is mostly false, but some small details are rooted in truth.

Not legit. The claim, photo or video is inaccurate or being taken out of context.

Editorial oversight:

Each fact-check written by a youth fact-checker goes through a rigorous editing process with a member of the MediaWise team. Student fact-checkers will research, report and write their fact-check and give the claim a rating. A member of the MediaWise team will thoroughly edit the script, confirm its accuracy and either agree with the rating, or choose a new rating.

The edited script will be sent to a second MediaWise staff member for review. When a fact-check rating can not be decided on, the fact-check will be sent to MediaWise Director Alex Mahadevan for final approval.

Once the script has been approved, the youth fact-checker will record and film the fact-check. Each video fact-check is reviewed by a MediaWise staff member and given feedback before being posted to social media. Once the fact-check has been approved, it will be posted to social media by a MediaWise staff member on the student’s behalf.

Information regarding our methodology can be found in our Editorial Standards, under "Story Selection and Rating Overview." https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/ 

"The Editorial Standards page on MW's website presents a clear and thorough explanation of its

methodology, as described in the applicant's response. This framework is comprehensive and transparent, and could be easily found on their website. Compliant."

"The Editorial Standards page on MW's website presents a clear and thorough explanation of its

methodology, as described in the applicant's response. This framework is comprehensive and transparent, and could be easily found on their website. Compliant."

"Compliant. A review of the randomised sample of fact checks proves MW's declared methodology to stand true in

practice. As described earlier, the criteria for reviewing fact-checks takes in mind the young audience of MW and TFCN, and most of the facts covered are focused on viral content and promoting media literacy.

Example:

Jan 9, 2023: You probably knew that Elon musk bought Twitter recently, but did you hear a rumor

about him also buying Snapchat?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7186664669241822506?lang=en

- Focusing on Elon Musk and further rumored media platform purchase(s), which relates to the heavily discussed Twitter acquisition that's been on the agenda this past year."

"Compliant. A review of the randomised sample of fact checks proves MW's declared methodology to stand true in

practice. As described earlier, the criteria for reviewing fact-checks takes in mind the young audience of MW and TFCN, and most of the facts covered are focused on viral content and promoting media literacy.

Example:

Jan 9, 2023: You probably knew that Elon musk bought Twitter recently, but did you hear a rumor

about him also buying Snapchat?

https://www.tiktok.com/@mediawise/video/7186664669241822506?lang=en

- Focusing on Elon Musk and further rumored media platform purchase(s), which relates to the heavily discussed Twitter acquisition that's been on the agenda this past year."

"Compliant. A review of the randomised sample of fact checks proves MW's declared methodology to stand true in

practice, and they exemplify a use of evidence both to support claims or to undermine it.

Examples:

(1) December 5, 2022: Are these photos from the Arctic accurate?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-these-photos-from-the-arctic-accurate/

- The evidence used here is supporting the claim, proving in fact that the arctic pictures are authentic.

(2) March 20, 2023: No, experts say, acid rain did not fall after Ohio train derailment

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/no-experts-say-acid-rain-did-not-fall-after-the-ohio-train-derailment/

https://youtu.be/tLc8WL-Z_98

- The evidence used here is used to undermine the claim on the acid rain in Ohio."

"Compliant. A review of the randomised sample of fact checks proves MW's declared methodology to stand true in

practice, and they exemplify a use of evidence both to support claims or to undermine it.

Examples:

(1) December 5, 2022: Are these photos from the Arctic accurate?

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/are-these-photos-from-the-arctic-accurate/

- The evidence used here is supporting the claim, proving in fact that the arctic pictures are authentic.

(2) March 20, 2023: No, experts say, acid rain did not fall after Ohio train derailment

https://www.poynter.org/tfcn/2023/no-experts-say-acid-rain-did-not-fall-after-the-ohio-train-derailment/

https://youtu.be/tLc8WL-Z_98

- The evidence used here is used to undermine the claim on the acid rain in Ohio."

"Compliant, as present in the reviewed sample.

For an example, see the last fact-check mentioned in the previous criteria, about the acid rain in Ohio. The fact-check publication covers the original claim while pointing out that the original speaker - Kate Biberdorf, ""Kate the Chemist"" - is actually a field expert on chemics and an associate professor at UT Austin. At the same time, given further information that contradicted her claims - main one being that it rained in Ohio only five days after the train derailment - her claims are assessed as wrong."

"Compliant, as present in the reviewed sample.

For an example, see the last fact-check mentioned in the previous criteria, about the acid rain in Ohio. The fact-check publication covers the original claim while pointing out that the original speaker - Kate Biberdorf, ""Kate the Chemist"" - is actually a field expert on chemics and an associate professor at UT Austin. At the same time, given further information that contradicted her claims - main one being that it rained in Ohio only five days after the train derailment - her claims are assessed as wrong."

As present in the sample reviewed, MW focuses mostly on fact-checking viral content spreading online, with a common case in which it's not necessarily attributed to a specific/identified speaker. Compliant within the context of "(I) often not possible [the contact a speaker] with online claims".

As present in the sample reviewed, MW focuses mostly on fact-checking viral content spreading online, with a common case in which it's not necessarily attributed to a specific/identified speaker. Compliant within the context of "(I) often not possible [the contact a speaker] with online claims".

MediaWise encourages readers to reach out to us directly through social media, or by alerting us to possible misinformation through the use of our hashtag, #IsThisLegit. MediaWise also encourages readers to submit claims to be fact-checked via email at mwtips@poynter.org. Information for submitting a claim can be found on our main website, here: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/

While we would love to be able to check out every reader-submitted claim, the MediaWise team will prioritize claims that have garnered the attention of a lot of people on social media. MediaWise cannot fact-check opinions, predictions or promises. Information regarding how MediaWise chooses fact-checkable claims can be found in our Editorial Standards under "Story Selection and Rating Overview." https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

"Compliant. As described in the applicant's response, there is an active encouragement to readers to alert MW about potential misinformation that needs to be fact-checked, both on social media and on their website. Their Editorial Standards page also preents the policy on prioritizing claims to be fact-checked, given their reach and impact.

For an example on a tweet encouraging users to use the hashtag to alert MW:

https://twitter.com/mediawise/status/1574920488433876994"

"Compliant. As described in the applicant's response, there is an active encouragement to readers to alert MW about potential misinformation that needs to be fact-checked, both on social media and on their website. Their Editorial Standards page also preents the policy on prioritizing claims to be fact-checked, given their reach and impact.

For an example on a tweet encouraging users to use the hashtag to alert MW:

https://twitter.com/mediawise/status/1574920488433876994"

Our corrections policy can be found in our Editorial Standards, here: https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/ .

It reads:

MediaWise issues corrections with the appropriate transparency as quickly as possible if an error has occurred. Depending on the platform on which the fact check was originally published, corrections may be handled differently to address those platform differences:

Instagram Story: We will post a correction on the Instagram story, add it to the corresponding highlight and include text with the correction information in the related feed post (if there is one).

Instagram feed post: We will add text to the feed post caption with details of the correction.

IGTV: We will add text to the feed post caption with details of the correction.

Twitter: We will add a tweet to the thread of the original tweet. If the error was particularly egregious, we’ll also publish a new tweet linking to the tweet with the error.

Facebook: We will post a correction on our page and link to the story with the error, or if possible, edit the original post and note that the post has been updated and corrected.

YouTube: We will add a correction to the video description box and text in the video title at the end.

Poynter.org: Corrections or updates will be added to the bottom of text article fact checks featured on Poynter’s website.

If the correction is debilitating to the story, we will consider removing it and issuing a correction in the relevant format in an attempt to reach the same audience who saw the initial story. These instances will be handled on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the MediaWise Director Alex Mahadevan.

Readers can bring errors to our attention by emailing us at mwtips@poynter.org or by sending us a direct message on any of our @MediaWise social channels. We may not respond in cases where the request for correction is unwarranted.

Compliant, as present in the applicant's response and in the Editorial Standards page - clear, detailed and transparent corrections and complaints policy.

Compliant, as present in the applicant's response and in the Editorial Standards page - clear, detailed and transparent corrections and complaints policy.

"The applicant's corrections policy meets the expected criteria, providing detail on how it is handled on each media platform and depending on the severity of the mistake.

I.e. ""MediaWise issues corrections with the appropriate transparency as quickly as possible if an error has occurred. Depending on the platform on which the fact check was originally published, corrections may be handled differently to address those platform differences.

...

If the correction is debilitating to the story, we will consider removing it and issuing a correction in the relevant format in an attempt to reach the same audience who saw the initial story. These instances will be handled on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the MediaWise Director Alex

Mahadevan."""

"The applicant's corrections policy meets the expected criteria, providing detail on how it is handled on each media platform and depending on the severity of the mistake.

I.e. ""MediaWise issues corrections with the appropriate transparency as quickly as possible if an error has occurred. Depending on the platform on which the fact check was originally published, corrections may be handled differently to address those platform differences.

...

If the correction is debilitating to the story, we will consider removing it and issuing a correction in the relevant format in an attempt to reach the same audience who saw the initial story. These instances will be handled on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by the MediaWise Director Alex

Mahadevan."""

MediaWise will issue corrections or clarifications on the appropriate social media platform where the fact-check was published. Because every youth-created fact-check is heavily vetted by a MediaWise staffer, have not had any corrections in the past year.

The applicant claims that no correction requests were made during the previous year. I haven't found any such requests. Compliant, under the assumption that this is correct and that this application will be available publicly (and thus under scrutiny if inaccurate).

The applicant claims that no correction requests were made during the previous year. I haven't found any such requests. Compliant, under the assumption that this is correct and that this application will be available publicly (and thus under scrutiny if inaccurate).

Our participation in the International Fact-checking Network

MediaWise is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network’s code of principles. They include:

- A commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness.

- A commitment to standards and transparency of sources.

- A commitment to transparency of funding & organization.

- A commitment to standards and transparency of methodology.

- A commitment to an open & honest corrections policy.

MediaWise first became a signatory to the IFCN principles on May 8, 2020. The application and an independent assessment of our work is available for the public to view via the International Fact-Checking Network. The network offers a complaint process to the public for anyone who believes that a fact-checking organization is significantly violating its commitment to the code.

This information can be found in our Editorial Standards, under "Our participation in the International Fact-checking Network" https://www.poynter.org/mediawise-editorial-standards-and-rating-system/

Compliant, as present in the Editorial Standards page.

Compliant, as present in the Editorial Standards page.

Poynter readers can submit a correction here:

https://www.poynter.org/archive/2016/submitting-a-correction-to-poynter-2/

Here is an archive of all of the corrections and clarifications issues on the website:

https://www.poynter.org/tag/poynter-corrects/

Compliant, as present in the applicant's response and at Poynter's attached pages.

Compliant, as present in the applicant's response and at Poynter's attached pages.