PolitiFact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies. 

Our statement of ownership is on our website at the following link:

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Our%20ownership

The Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc. is a nonprofit 501(c)3 based in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA. The EIN for the organization is 59-1630423. You can view The Poynter Institute’s most-recent public financial disclosure form 990 here:

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/591630423                       

All information is accessible in the provided links.

1. PolitiFact started in 2007 as an election-year project of the Tampa Bay Times (then named the St. Petersburg Times), Florida’s largest daily newspaper. PolitiFact was created to look at specific statements made by politicians and rate them for accuracy. In 2018, PolitiFact moved from the Times to the Times' nonprofit owner The Poynter Institute. 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#How%20PolitiFact%20Started

2. PolitiFact currently has 14 full-time staffers (a mix of editors and reporters) and approximately 10 freelance contributors. We also have partnerships with local or specialized news organizations that have their own staffers listed on the PolitiFact staff page.

https://www.politifact.com/staff/

3. PolitiFact publishes political fact-checking and tracks the campaign promises of the president. PolitiFact debunks misinformation on social media and is a fact-checker with Facebook's third-party fact-checking program and with TikTok. PolitiFact promotes media literacy and independent journalism. PolitiFact works with academic researchers to study the news ecosystem and how it contributes to an informed electorate.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/dec/03/state-politifact-2019-report-our-readers/

4. PolitiFact has a mission to fact-check elections and other issues of public interest. In 2022, we are now fact-checking the war in Ukraine and the midterm elections for Congress. We continue to fact-check claims about the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19. We also fact-check claims about the economy, inflation, gas prices, racial justice, immigration and any other topics that arise in the news. 

All of the provided information is stated clearly on the site for the reader. 

Overall, PolitiFact's mission is to disseminate truthful information to the public and dispel claims circulating in the public that are untrue or misleading to varying degrees. PolitiFact is highly trusted and considered a very reputable fact checking operation within the United States. In terms of the US's political climate, the country remains very polarized, particularly on the issue of the pandemic and conspiracies still abound regarding the 2020 election. A current investigation is wrapping up on the January 6 riots at the Capitol where the building was stormed in an attempt to overturn the election results where Joe Biden (D) beat former President Donald Trump (R). The US is increasingly suffering from constant mis- and disinformation campaigns that indicate Politifact's mission of contributing to an informed public is deeply important.

PolitiFact significantly exceeds this criteria. We generally publish two to six fact-checks (or more) five days a week. Here is a link to all the fact-checks published on the site, beginning with the most recently published.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/list/

Politifact exceeds the requirement for 1 fact check/week and often publishes multiple per day

Fact checks reviewed over the prior 3 months all focus on topics relevant to public interest or welfare, with the most frequent topics including: politics and policy, public health, and the media

We have no such relationships. PolitiFact does not accept donations from anonymous sources, political parties, elected officials or candidates seeking public office, or any other source with a conflict of interest as determined by PolitiFact’s executive director.

https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/

We do not receive funding from political sources. 

We have selected a variety of fact-checks to show that we fact-check both U.S. major parties with the same high standards of accuracy.

Democrats:

False for Val Demings, attack on her Senate opponent Marco Rubio

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/09/val-demings/no-proof-val-demings-claim-marco-rubio-backs-tax-h/

False for Joe Biden, exaggerating his trips to Iraq and Afghanistan

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/03/joe-biden/biden-exaggerates-trips-iraq-afghanistan-state-uni/

False for Joe Biden, fabricating history of an arrest at a civil rights protest

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/13/joe-biden/evidence-scant-joe-biden-was-arrested-protesting-c/

Mostly False for Kamala Harris, exaggerating severity of new state voting laws

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/15/kamala-harris/fact-checking-kamala-harris-claim-food-water-hando/

False for Charles Schumer, exaggerating safety of people left behind in Afghanistan

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/sep/07/charles-schumer/chuck-schumers-incorrect-statement-about-americans/

Republicans:

False for Donald Trump, said Vice President Mike Pence had the authority to overturn the election

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/01/donald-trump/trump-falsely-says-electoral-count-act-talks-prove/

False for Mike Pence, said canceling the Keystone pipeline increased US dependence on Russia's oil

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/11/mike-pence/mike-pences-group-falsely-blames-bidens-nixing-key/

False for Kevin McCarthy, for exaggerating the likelihood of an IRS audit

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/19/kevin-mccarthy/kevin-mccarthy-misleads-about-build-back-better-le/

False for Donald Trump for claiming that Hillary Clinton spied on him

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/donald-trump/donald-trumps-save-america-pac-falsely-claims-hill/

False for Ron DeSantis, who said that mask-wearing was "COVID theater"

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/04/ron-desantis/florida-gov-ron-desantis-mischaracterizes-efficacy/

In both the provided set of fact checks and the sample collected by the assessor, the applicant evaluates the claims using the same standards of judgment. 

In cases of evaluating how a person interpreted the law, the fact checkers would always bring in multiple legal expects regardless of political leaning of the claim, as in this case: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/01/donald-trump/trump-falsely-says-electoral-count-act-talks-prove/ 

In cases where fact checkers use archives, they provided detailed findings from their research regardless of who was being evaluated, as in this case: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/13/joe-biden/evidence-scant-joe-biden-was-arrested-protesting-c/ 

Overall, the fact checks were fair in their standards of judgment and evidence.

From our website: 

How we choose claims to fact-check

Each day, PolitiFact journalists look for statements to fact-check. We read transcripts, speeches, news stories, press releases, and campaign brochures. We watch TV and scan social media. Readers send us suggestions via email to truthometer@politifact.com; we often fact-check statements submitted by readers. Because we can't feasibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.

In deciding which statements to check, we consider these questions:

• Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.

• Does the statement seem misleading or sound wrong?

• Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that are obviously a slip of the tongue.

• Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?

• Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?

We select statements about topics that are in the news. Without keeping count, we try to select facts to check from both Democrats and Republicans. At the same time, we more often fact-check the party that holds power or people who repeatedly make attention-getting or misleading statements.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#How%20we%20choose%20claims

Politifact provides fair criteria in conducting their fact checks. Their samples as well as the random sample collected by the assessor, show that they do no unduly concentrate their fact checks on any one side. President Biden's claims feature heavily in the fact checks, but as the President of the United States his public comments are both more frequent and more scrutinized by other political and media figures.

In the assessed samples, there were no cases where relevant interests of sources were not disclosed to the reader. When sources were introduced into the evaluation of a claim, the fact checkers always provided credentials and affiliations, but nonetheless most of those cases would not rise to the level of requiring a disclosure of interests.

Politifact does not appeared to be affiliated with any political party or politician. Its fact checks remain neutral and do not appear to advocate for any candidate or policy; rather, they focus on evaluating the truth of the claim.

From our website:

Our ethics policy for PolitiFact journalists

PolitiFact seeks to present the true facts, unaffected by agenda or biases. Our journalists set their own opinions aside as they work to uphold principles of independence and fairness. 

As part of that effort, PolitiFact journalists avoid the public expression of political opinion and public involvement in the political process.

We don’t make political contributions or work on campaigns. We don’t sign online petitions, post yard signs, or participate in political marches.

We avoid expressing political views on social media. We do share news stories and other journalism, but we take care not to be seen as endorsing or opposing a political figure or position. We avoid snarky commentary.

We may participate in the political process as voters, because we also have responsibilities as individual citizens of the United States. But we keep our votes to ourselves as a matter of principle. Our goal is to be open-minded in all of our work.

This policy applies to full-time staffers, correspondents and interns. We avoid doing anything that compromises PolitiFact or our ability to do our jobs with independence and fairness.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Our%20ethics%20policy

Politifact offers a clear non-partisanship policy that ensures their staff do not engage in partisan work. In a random review of social media accounts of staff, the content posted focuses on fact checks only and there was no evidence of political campaigning.

Politifact is thorough in providing information about sources, citations, and relevant hyperlinks as appropriate. For example, in this fact check 34 sources are provided for the reader: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/15/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-falsely-claims-covid-19-vaccines-mi/ 

There were no cases in the samples where a source remained anonymous.

Since many of the claims in the sample are ones made by public figures, Politifact is often able to show without contact to the direct source that the claim was in fact made. Beyond that, the sample showed a good faith effort at reaching out to primary sources for comment as appropriate. For example, the fact checker reached out to the White House in this case: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/03/joe-biden/biden-exaggerates-trips-iraq-afghanistan-state-uni/> and reached out to a political group in this case: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/11/mike-pence/mike-pences-group-falsely-blames-bidens-nixing-key/>.

In addition to reaching out to primary sources as needed, the fact checkers used multiple secondary sources to back-up claims - often these were correspondences over phone or email that were noted in the citations. 

Politifact is thorough in checking claims against multiple sources. As noted in criteria 3.1, one fact check included 34 sources (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/15/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-falsely-claims-covid-19-vaccines-mi/) and all others were also well-sourced. 

The sample did not reveal any cases where relevant interests of sources were noted - rather, credentials or affiliations were always included when sources were introduced.

We are the fact-checking section of a parent organization. 

PolitiFact is the fact-checking section of a parent organization, the Poynter Institute. We are listed on the Poynter website as one of its divisions under Poynter's ethics and fact-checking mission. PolitiFact's editor-in-chief and executive director report directly to the Poynter president. 

https://www.poynter.org/poynter-thought-leader/

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Our%20ownership

Can the applicant provide more information to offer support of their organizational status with their parent organization?

Can the applicant provide more information to offer support of their organizational status with their parent organization?

Revisions address assessor's question - organizational status clearly stated

From our website:

PolitiFact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies. PolitiFact had been owned by the Tampa Bay Times, but in 2018 direct ownership of PolitiFact was transferred from the Times to Poynter, which is the newspaper’s parent company. The move allows PolitiFact to function fully as a not-for-profit national news organization.

The ties between the Poynter Institute and the Tampa Bay Times go back decades. The longtime owner of the Times was Nelson Poynter, whose father had bought the newspaper in 1912. Poynter championed independent journalism and wanted to ensure that the newspaper remain locally owned and protected from chain ownership. So upon his death in 1978, he left the newspaper not to his heirs, but to the school for journalists that now bears his name.

Nelson Poynter was also the founder of Congressional Quarterly, a news organization covering Congress in Washington, D.C., that the Poynter Institute owned until 2009. PolitiFact now continues the Poynter Institute’s historical connection to Washington-based political journalism.

Control of both the Poynter Institute and the Tampa Bay Times lies with a single executive. Upon retirement, that leader picks a successor. Poynter himself picked Eugene Patterson, who picked Andrew Barnes, who picked the Times' current chairman and CEO, Paul Tash, a lifelong journalist.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Our%20ownership

Transparent ownership statement

From our website:

How we determine Truth-O-Meter ratings

The reporter who researches and writes the fact-check suggests a rating when they turn in the report to an assigning editor. The editor and reporter review the report together, typically making clarifications and adding additional details. They come to agreement on the rating. Then, the assigning editor brings the rated fact-check to two additional editors.

The three editors and reporter then review the fact-check by discussing the following questions.

• Is the statement literally true?

• Is there another way to read the statement? Is the statement open to interpretation?

• Did the speaker provide evidence? Did the speaker prove the statement to be true?

• How have we handled similar statements in the past? What is PolitiFact’s jurisprudence?

The three editors then vote on the rating (two votes carry the decision), sometimes leaving it as the reporter suggested and sometimes changing it to a different rating. More edits are made; the report is then published.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Truth-O-Meter%20ratings

Clear process with both transparent steps explained in writing and video

The PolitiFact staff page. Biographies are also linked from bylines on each fact-check and story.

https://www.politifact.com/staff/

The professional biographies of staff are clear and accessible.

Readers can use this form, linked from the homepage menu, to suggest a fact-check: https://www.politifact.com/suggest/statement/

Staff biographies typically have clearly designated email addresses and (in most cases) phone numbers, unless the reporter has been targeted for online harassment.

Our page footer includes a link to the "suggest a fact-check" as well as our mailing addresses and the Poynter Institute's phone number.

Politifact has a form for readers, biographies of staff have contact information and social media handles, and the footer of the site includes contact information.

From our website: 

How we choose claims to fact-check; Our on-the-record sourcing; How we determine Truth-O-Meter ratings

How we choose claims to fact-check

Each day, PolitiFact journalists look for statements to fact-check. We read transcripts, speeches, news stories, press releases, and campaign brochures. We watch TV and scan social media. Readers send us suggestions via email to truthometer@politifact.com; we often fact-check statements submitted by readers. Because we can't feasibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.

In deciding which statements to check, we consider these questions:

• Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.

• Does the statement seem misleading or sound wrong?

• Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that are obviously a slip of the tongue.

• Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?

• Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?

We select statements about topics that are in the news. Without keeping count, we try to select facts to check from both Democrats and Republicans. At the same time, we more often fact-check the party that holds power or people who repeatedly make attention-getting or misleading statements.

Our on-the-record sourcing

PolitiFact uses on-the-record interviews and publishes a list of sources with every fact-check. When possible, the list includes links to sources that are freely available, although some sources rely on paid subscriptions. The goal is to help readers judge for themselves whether they agree with the ruling.

We always contact or attempt to contact the person, website or organization that made the statement we are fact-checking.

Every fact-check is different, but generally speaking our reporting process includes the following: a review of what other fact-checkers have found previously; a thorough Google search; a search of online databases; consultation with a variety of experts; a review of publications and a final overall review of available evidence.

We emphasize primary sources and original documentation. We seek direct access to government reports, academic studies and other data. It’s not sufficient for us to get something second-hand. We don’t rely on what a campaign or elected official tells us -- we verify it independently.

In cases where PolitiFact must cite news reports from other media that rely on unnamed or unattributed sources (usually due to the extreme newsworthiness of the report), we note that we cannot independently verify their reporting.

How we determine Truth-O-Meter ratings

The goal of the Truth-O-Meter is to reflect the relative accuracy of a statement. The meter has six ratings, in decreasing level of truthfulness:

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

The burden of proof is on the speaker, and we rate statements based on the information known at the time the statement is made.

The reporter who researches and writes the fact-check suggests a rating when they turn in the report to an assigning editor. The editor and reporter review the report together, typically making clarifications and adding additional details. They come to agreement on the rating. Then, the assigning editor brings the rated fact-check to two additional editors.

The three editors and reporter then review the fact-check by discussing the following questions.

• Is the statement literally true?

• Is there another way to read the statement? Is the statement open to interpretation?

• Did the speaker provide evidence? Did the speaker prove the statement to be true?

• How have we handled similar statements in the past? What is PolitiFact’s jurisprudence?

The three editors then vote on the rating (two votes carry the decision), sometimes leaving it as the reporter suggested and sometimes changing it to a different rating. More edits are made; the report is then published.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#How%20we%20choose%20claims

Methodology clearly explained

Claims evaluated by fact check are typically timely and are shown to be important to the public broadly. Their work does have specific targets on different states in the US, so those fact checks may have less reach, but the issues addressed related to those states typically align with broader public issues, like national politics or public health.

Politifact typically starts fact checks by offering an overview of the claim - and while these claims sometimes don't offer evidence, the fact checkers will explain where the claim may have originated. Fact checkers then offer an evaluation of the claim by discussing evidence that appears to undermine the claim. A good example is this analysis of Rachel Maddow's claim about Trump not encouraging vaccines: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/ 

There is no evidence of bias in applying standards in evaluation of equivalent claims.

In cases where the fact checker attempted to reach out to the source, they note such attempts, as in the following example:

 "We reached out to Trump’s office and did not hear back."

From  

We continuously invite users on social media and via our weekly email newsletter to send us claims to check. We also lay out our criteria and invite readers to send suggestions via our website.

How we choose claims to fact-check

Each day, PolitiFact journalists look for statements to fact-check. We read transcripts, speeches, news stories, press releases, and campaign brochures. We watch TV and scan social media. Readers send us suggestions via email to truthometer@politifact.com; we often fact-check statements submitted by readers. Because we can't feasibly check all claims, we select the most newsworthy and significant ones.

In deciding which statements to check, we consider these questions:

• Is the statement rooted in a fact that is verifiable? We don’t check opinions, and we recognize that in the world of speechmaking and political rhetoric, there is license for hyperbole.

• Does the statement seem misleading or sound wrong?

• Is the statement significant? We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that are obviously a slip of the tongue.

• Is the statement likely to be passed on and repeated by others?

• Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?

We select statements about topics that are in the news. Without keeping count, we try to select facts to check from both Democrats and Republicans. At the same time, we more often fact-check the party that holds power or people who repeatedly make attention-getting or misleading statements.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#How%20we%20choose%20claims

Clear language for readers to submit requests as well as for them to understand the process of how claims are selected to be fact-checked

From our website:

How we correct our mistakes

Mistakes happen. PolitiFact corrects errors as quickly as possible and with appropriate transparency. Readers and others can bring errors to our attention by emailing truthometer@politifact.com or contacting the individual reporter. We may not respond in cases where the request for correction is baseless or unwarranted.

Major errors of fact – A serious error that results in a new rating or otherwise changes the general outlook of the fact-check receives a mark of correction at the top of the fact-check.

The text of the fact-check is updated with the new information, and an archived copy of the previous fact-check is preserved and linked to. Additionally, the link text for the item is marked as updated. Corrected fact-checks receive a tag of "Corrections and updates."

Errors of fact – Errors of fact that do not impact the rating or do not change the general outlook of the fact-check receive a mark of correction at the bottom of the fact-check.

The text of the fact-check is updated with the new information. The correction states the correct information that has been added to the report. If necessary for clarity, it repeats the incorrect information. Corrected fact-checks receive a tag of "Corrections and updates."

Typos, grammatical errors, misspellings – We correct typos, grammatical errors, misspellings, transpositions and other small errors without a mark of correction or tag and as soon as they are brought to our attention.

Updates – From time to time, we add additional information to stories and fact-checks after they’ve published, not as a correction but as a service to readers. Examples include a response from the speaker we received after publication (that did not change the conclusion of the report), or breaking news after publication that is relevant to the check. Updates can be made parenthetically within the text with a date, or at the end of the report. Updated fact-checks receive a tag of "Corrections and updates."

Explanatory editor’s notes – Sometimes we alert readers to other information that would be helpful, without changing the original report, such as an outpouring of reader response. In those cases, we post an editor’s note, either at the top or the bottom of the report, as appropriate. Editor’s notes are sometimes used on initial publication to explain a special report’s purpose or outlook.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Correcting%20our%20mistakes

corrections policy meets criteria

A previous version of a fact-check about President Joe Biden and the Supreme Court mistakenly named George W. Bush as the president who appointed Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. The president who appointed Thomas was George H. W. Bush. See correction at the bottom of the check. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/sean-hannity/joe-biden-isnt-first-prioritize-race-gender-pickin/

A fact-check about U.S. Sen. Rick Scott speaking about critical race theory  incorrectly quoted Professor  Brenda Walker to say "a decade," not "decades." We updated the check to reflect the correction. The change did not affect the rating. See correction at the bottom of the check. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/16/rick-scott/critical-race-theory-isnt-virginias-curriculum/

Provided examples demonstrate adherence to the policy

From our website:

Our participation in the International Fact-checking Network

As part of our ongoing efforts to champion the values of accuracy, transparency and fairness, PolitiFact is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network’s code of principles.

The network says its code is for "organizations that regularly publish nonpartisan reports on the accuracy of statements by public figures, major institutions, and other widely circulated claims of interest to society. It is the result of consultations among fact-checkers from around the world and offers conscientious practitioners principles to aspire to in their everyday work."

The principles are aimed at common goals or excellence in fact-checking around the world. They include:

• A commitment to nonpartisanship and fairness.

• A commitment to transparency of sources.

• A commitment to transparency of funding and organization.

• A commitment to transparency of methodology.

• A commitment to open and honest corrections.

PolitiFact first became a signatory to the IFCN principles on April 15, 2017, and has renewed its commitment every year since. 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 principles. 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Our%20participation%20in%20the%20International%20Fact-checking%20Network

Signatory status and IFCN contact information available to readers via provided link

From the Poynter Institute's ethics policy:

Accuracy

We do our best to make sure that everything we publish is accurate and true to the facts. This ranges from the easily confirmed, e.g. the spelling of names, to the nuanced and more debatable, e.g. characterizations of political initiatives. We strive to be inclusive in our coverage so that we reflect a wide range of perspectives and experiences. While we encourage creativity and experimentation in work, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to accuracy.

In practice: We maintain high standards of reporting, writing and editing to produce work that is as error-free as possible. We create and edit our journalism in ways aimed at anticipating problem areas, reducing mistakes and correcting them as quickly and transparently as we can. We provide timely responses, clear corrections and prominent acknowledgments that a mistake was made and addressed. We credit the authors and creators of the various forms of journalism we publish. We apply appropriate scrutiny to work by staff and contributing writers to prevent plagiarism, intentional or otherwise. We do not intentionally mislead with words or images. We do not deliberately deceive as we gather information. We encourage the best possible work within the limits of our resources. While we value timeliness, particularly in service to our constituents on deadline, we value accuracy more. 

https://www.poynter.org/poynter-institute-code-ethics/

Link to Poynter's corrected stories

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

Link provided demonstrates open and honest corrections policy