Organization: PolitiFact
Applicant: Katie Sanders
Assessor: Margot Susca
Background
There is something comforting about seeing the Truthometer. It’s a helpful heuristic in the fact check ecosystem. That is, right away, with a visual cue you know, where on a scale an item ranks going all the way to Pants on Fire. I also think the inclusion of “If Your Time is Short” is another helpful layer for readers, and at the end of that box it includes a link that says “See the sources for this fact check.” That’s a great resource.
Of course, for those who have time to delve deeper, Politifact explains with sourcing and a step-by-step methodology how it has arrived at its assessment of a claim’s truthfulness. I also think it’s helpful that Politifact uses tags, for example, on the fact check I reviewed from August on a Joe Biden White House speech it had tags for “DEFICIT, FEDERAL BUDGET, HEALTH CARE, MEDICARE, JOE BIDEN” and its footer also has links to major newsmakers including Ron DeSantis, Charles Schumer, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
In its 2023 application to be re-assessed as an IFCN signatory, Politifact explained: ‘In 2023, our team is focused on covering the field of Republican presidential candidates as well as President Joe Biden. We hired a reporter to report on LGBTQ+ issues, and we brought on two bilingual reporters to eventually launch a new website that covers Spanish-language claims in both English and Spanish. We continue to fact-check claims about climate change, immigration, the economy and the coronavirus vaccines, as well as any other topics that arise in the news.’ Given Politifact’s history and respect in the field of fact-checking–not to mention the tasks that lie ahead going into a presidential election year–it’s nice to see it expanding into bi-lingual coverage. It would certainly be a boost to see it in future years--as its budgets and staffing allow--to expand into other languages as well given its respect in the global fact checking community.
Assessment Conclusion
I note full compliance with all criteria, but there are two areas of concern although they did not rise to the level of "Request Change."
1) Under funding, the relationship of Politifact to Poynter is clearly articulated. But how is Politifact's fact checking partnership to Meta and ByteDance monetized? Perhaps this is not a sufficient revenue-generating source? But if it is, it should be explained for transparency.
2) The corrections policy takes too many steps to get to. If you go to About us-->Corrections and Updates online, you should find the corrections policy. (That's what I think. But, you don't.) You find it by going to About us-->Our process then you see “How we correct our mistakes.” Obviously the corrections policy is solid, but that was my experience, and I thought I would share it.
Margot Susca assesses application as Compliant
A short summary in native publishing language
There are many points about Politifact that excel: Its sourcing, its narrative, its staff expertise, its clarity of staff bios, its ability to provide context on complex topics, its reach on social media, and its reputation. I think the links under its About Us section provide any reasonable person with a full accounting of its ethics and nonpartisanship, too.
Section 1: Eligibility to be a signatory
To be eligible to be a signatory, applicants must meet these six criteria
- 1.1 The applicant is a legally registered organization, or a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization, and details of this are easily found on its website.
- 1.2 The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.
- 1.3 The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application. For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track. Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.
- 1.4 On average, at least 75% of the applicant’s fact checks focus on claims related to issues that, in the view of the IFCN, relate to or could have an impact on the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public or society.
- 1.5 The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.
- 1.6 If the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, it provides a statement on its site setting out to the satisfaction of the IFCN, how it ensures its funders do not influence the findings of its reports.
Criteria 1.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain where on your website you set out information about your organization’s legal status and how this complies with criteria. Attach a link to the relevant page of your website.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
PolitiFact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies.
Our statement of ownership is on our website at the following link:
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
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I confirm that Politifact is compliant with Criteria 1.1.
done_all 1.1 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 1.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please answer the following questions – (see notes in Guidelines for Application on how to answer)
1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?
2. How many people work or volunteer in the organization and what are their roles?
3. What different activities does your organization carry out?
4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
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.
2. PolitiFact currently has 20 full-time staffers (a mix of editors and reporters) and approximately eight 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 2023, our team is focused on covering the field of Republican presidential candidates as well as President Joe Biden. We hired a reporter to report on LGBTQ+ issues, and we brought on two bilingual reporters to eventually launch a new website that covers Spanish-language claims in both English and Spanish. We continue to fact-check claims about climate change, immigration, the economy and the coronavirus vaccines, as well as any other topics that arise in the news.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
Criteria 1.2 is compliant as all four questions have been answered.
done_all 1.2 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 1.3
Proof you meet criteria
- The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application.
- For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track.
- Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I have reviewed a dozen fact checks published over the last three months and confirm that the minimum threshold has been met. As such, I mark Criteria 1.3 as compliant.
done_all 1.3 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 1.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous three months. No additional information required.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I reviewed a dozen fact checks published in August, September, October and November 2023. I only reviewed English-language posts. These will be explained in depth in sections below related to sourcing and methodology and summarized in the assessment conclusion. I can confirm based on this review that Politifact is compliant in Criteria 1.4, and I have listed the posts I reviewed by date in reverse chronological order with link below.
Nov. 10 Instagram post "Jews did 9/11" https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/nov/10/instagram-posts/al-qaida-terrorists-were-responsible-for-sept-11-a/
Nov. 8 from the Republican debate https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/nov/09/chris-christie/fact-checking-chris-christie-on-us-security-obliga/
Nov. 8 from a TV ad https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/nov/08/wisconsin-election-committee-inc/claim-that-wis-elections-official-meagan-wolfe-ref/
Nov. 3 Kamala Harris in an interview https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/nov/03/kamala-harris/do-bidens-policies-get-the-credit-for-the-decline/
Oct. 31 Rick Scott X post https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/31/rick-scott/rick-scott-warns-about-fentanyl-in-halloween-candy/
Oct. 31 Gov. Ron DeSantis speaking in New Hampshire https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/31/ron-desantis/desantis-critique-of-trump-election-spending-omits/
Oct. 27 Gun control activist Shannon Watts https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/27/shannon-watts/in-maine-is-it-harder-to-buy-sudafed-than-an-ar-15/
Oct. 23 Former Pres. Donald Trump at a New Hampshire rally https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/26/donald-trump/iran-foreign-reserves-plummeted-trump-watch/
Oct 12 West Virginia Republican party on wages https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/oct/12/west-virginia-republican-party/are-wva-republicans-correct-that-real-wages-have-f/
Sept. 29 Instagram post Joe Biden body double https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/sep/29/instagram-posts/two-year-old-video-claims-to-show-biden-body-doubl/
Sept. 28 Vivek Ramaswamy on transgender as mental disorder https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/sep/28/vivek-ramaswamy/vivek-ramaswamy-got-it-wrong-being-trans-isnt-a-me/
Aug. 31 Joe Biden speech at White House on Inflation Reduction Act https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/aug/31/joe-biden/is-joe-biden-right-that-new-medicare-drug-law-will/
done_all 1.4 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 1.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship your organization has to the state, politicians or political parties in the country or countries you cover. Also explain funding or support received from foreign as well as local state or political actors over the previous financial year.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
n/a
done_all 1.5 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 1.6
Proof you meet criteria
If you confirmed the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, provide a link to where on your website you set out how you ensure the editorial independence of your work.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
We do not receive funding from political sources.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
n/a
done_all 1.6 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Section 2: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness
To be compliant on nonpartisanship and fairness, applicants must meet these five criteria
- 2.1 The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.
- 2.2 The applicant does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to check and publishes a short statement on its website to set out how it selects claims to check.
- 2.3 The applicant discloses in its fact checks relevant interests of the sources it quotes where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. It also discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships it has that a member of the public might reasonably conclude could influence the findings of the fact check.
- 2.4 The applicant is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.
- 2.5 The applicant sets out its policy on non-partisanship for staff on its site. Save for the issues of accuracy and transparency, the applicant’s staff do not get involved in advocacy or publicise their views on policy issues the organization might fact check in such a way as might lead a reasonable member of the public to see the organization’s work as biased.
Criteria 2.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please share links to 10 fact checks published over the past year that you believe demonstrate your non-partisanship.
Please briefly explain how the fact checks selected show that (I) you use the same high standards of evidence for equivalent claims, (II) follow the same essential process for every fact check and (III) let the evidence dictate your conclusions.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
PolitiFact has a 15-year track record of fact-checking public officials of all political parties. PolitiFact seeks to fact-check the most influential leaders in the United States, regardless of political party.
Our standards and reporting process are identical regardless of who we’re fact-checking, and the evidence we find dictates our rating.
Below are several high profile examples of fact-checks we published of members of both major U.S. political parties.
Democrats:
Joe Biden miscalculates how much billionaires pay in taxes (False rating)
Joe Biden says domestic violence calls prompt most police deaths; data lists likelier causes (False rating)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez overestimates Trump tax cuts’ contribution to national debt (False rating)
Trump in the rough? Altered photo falsely depicts former president on the golf course (Pants on Fire for U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla.)
Mandela Barnes team misfires on claim Ron Johnson voted against law enforcement (False rating)
Republicans
Fact-check: Trump’s bogus claim on Fox News that ballots in 2020 were ‘fake’ (Pants on Fire rating)
Ron DeSantis said that not ‘a single book’ was banned in Florida. Districts have removed dozens. (False rating)
Mike Pence repeats false claim that Barack Obama started migrant family separations
Blake Masters’ flawed comparison of treatment for veterans, immigrants illegally in the country (False rating)
Nikki Haley falsely links transgender athletes with teen girls’ suicidal ideation
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I can confirm through the review of the fact checks listed above as well as those listed by the applicant that both major political parties are fact checked as well as key figures in each party as well as those running for office in key races including president. These show a commitment to nonpartisanship.
As such, I mark Criteria 2.1 compliant.
done_all 2.1 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 2.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you explain how you select claims to check, explaining how you ensure you do not unduly concentrate your fact-checking on any one side, and how you consider the reach and importance of the claims you select to check.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
Finding this information online is easy. Any member of the audience would be able to engage with this and understand how and why a claim is chosen. I have included a screen shot of that from Politifact's website.
**For the next two items, I'll review two items dealing with the president and vice president to show how Democratic members of the executive had two different evaluations provided to their statements.
As such, I mark Criteria 2.2 as compliant.
Screen Shot 2023-11-... (88 KB)
done_all 2.2 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 2.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I reviewed the August fact check from a Joe Biden speech made at the White House. “According to the Congressional Budget Office,” the Inflation Reduction Act “will save the federal government $160 billion over the next 10 years because Medicare will be paying less for the prescription drugs they’re making available to seniors.” Here, Politifact rated this claim as "mostly true" given that "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects 10-year cumulative savings of $161.7 billion from two provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act." But, the fact check site noted that not all of the savings will be permanent.
I rate Criteria 2.3 compliant.
done_all 2.3 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 2.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I reviewed the November fact check of a Kamala Harris statement made during a CBS News appearance in which the Democratic vice president said: “Because of our economic policies we now are reducing inflation.” This one got a "mostly false" rating because of nothing to do with economic policies coming from the White House. Fact checker Louis Jacobson wrote: "...the biggest reason for the disinflationary pattern has been something the administration doesn’t control: interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. A decline in oil prices and a slowdown in China’s economy, which the administration can’t control, either, have helped, too, economists say."
As such, I mark Criteria 2.4 compliant.
done_all 2.4 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 2.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you publish a statement setting out your policy on non-partisanship for staff and how it ensures the organization meets this criteria.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I easily found the ethics policy, which sets out the nonpartisanship for staff members even including information on allowing voting but keeping that private. I have included a screen shot.
As such, I mark Criteria 2.5 compliant.
Screen Shot 2023-11-... (201 KB)
done_all 2.5 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Section 3: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources
To be compliant on sources, applicants must meet these four criteria
- 3.1 The applicant identifies the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks, providing relevant links where the source is available online, in such a way that users can replicate their work if they wish. In cases where identifying the source would compromise the source’s personal security, the applicant provides as much detail as compatible with the source’s safety.
- 3.2 The applicant uses the best available primary, not secondary, sources of evidence wherever suitable primary sources are available. Where suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source.
- 3.3 The applicant checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence save where the one source is the only source relevant on the topic.
- 3.4 The applicant identifies in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.
Criteria 3.1
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To assess and judge Criteria 3.1 as compliant I reviewed: Wisconsin elections administrator Meagan Wolfe “refuses to clean up our voter rolls” from November 2023 written by Tyler Katzenberger.
These are the sources used to assign the Pants on Fire rating; these also are hyperlinked in the story narrative.
Politifact, Impeachment articles against Meagan Wolfe riddled with false and misleading claims, Oct. 4, 2023
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Group spending six figures on ads threatening to unseat Vos unless elections chief Wolfe is impeached, Nov. 2, 2023
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Vos moves impeachment articles against elections chief Wolfe to committee in wake of ad pressure campaign, Nov. 2, 2023
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Assembly Republicans put forward impeachment articles for Wisconsin elections chief Meagan Wolfe, Sept. 21, 2023
U.S. Census Bureau, Wisconsin 2020 Census
Wisconsin State Statutes, 6.50
Wisconsin State Statutes, 6.50(10)
Wisconsin Supreme Court, Zignego et al v. Wisconsin Election Commission et al, Apr. 9, Wisconsin Elections Commission, Nov. 1, 2023 Voter Registration Statistics, Nov. 2, 2023
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Robin Vos fires Michael Gableman, ending a 2020 election review that's cost taxpayers more than $1 million and produced no evidence of fraud, Aug. 12, 2022
done_all 3.1 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 3.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To assess and judge Criteria 3.2 as compliant, I reviewed the fact check written by Amy Sherman on October 31, 2023 "DeSantis’ critique of Trump election spending omits that not all $400 million went for mail ballots." DeSantis at a town hall in New Hampshire claimed that “The Republicans and Trump funded $400 million in March of 2020 for mail ballots.” That was given a "Half True" rating, and a variety of sources were used ranging from the US Census to DeSantis' own press releases and interviews with his staff members.
It also includes primary sources among them: U.S. Election Assistance Commission, CARES state reports, Aug. 7, 2023; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2022 grant expenditure report, June 30, 2023; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 2020 grant expenditure report, July 2021; U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Assistance Commission Plans for Use of CARES Act Report to the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, 2020; New Hampshire Department of State, Final Report of the Select Committee on 2020 Emergency Election Support, June 2020;
done_all 3.2 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 3.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To evaluate and judge Criteria 3.3 compliant, I reviewed the fact check of gun-control advocate Shannon Watts made on X in the wake of the mass shooting in Maine in which Watts said: "It is harder to buy Sudafed than an AR-15 in Maine." This one, written by fact checker Louis Jacobson, got a "Half True" rating. The sources used included:
Justice Department, "General Information Regarding the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005," accessed Oct. 27, 2023
National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Over-the-Counter Medicines DrugFacts," accessed Oct. 27, 2023
National Association of Chain Drug Stores, "Pseudoephedrine Laws By State, Maine" accessed Oct. 27, 2023
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers," accessed Oct. 27, 2023
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Most Frequently Asked Firearms Questions and Answers," accessed Oct. 27, 2023
National Precursor Log Exchange
Everytown for Gun Safety, "Gun Laws in Maine," accessed Oct. 27, 2023
Giffords, "Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess," accessed Oct. 27, 2023
CNN, "Manhunt continues after Maine shooting rampage," Oct. 27, 2023
ABC News, "What to know about Maine's gun laws after Lewiston mass shooting," Oct. 26, 2023
CBS News, "5 things that are more complicated than buying a gun in Florida," Feb. 19, 2018
Verify, "There’s no federal limit for the amount of guns and ammo you can buy, but there is for Sudafed," June 10, 2022
PolitiFact, "In gun policy address, Joe Biden exaggerates about background checks at gun shows," April 8, 2021
Email interview with Chris Harris, vice president for communications for Giffords, Oct. 27, 2023
Email interview with Mark Oliva, managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Oct. 27, 2023
done_all 3.3 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 3.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To evaluate and judge Criteria 3.4 compliant, I reviewed the October 2023 fact check written by Jacquie Broush about a claim made by the West Virginia Republican Party that "Since Biden took office ... real wages have fallen monthly.” This one was given a "Mostly True" rating largely because Broush writes, "Inflation has outpaced wages for most of Biden’s tenure in office." The sources used are:
West Virginia Republican Party, post on X, accessed Aug. 17, 2023
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, average hourly earnings for all private-sector employees, accessed Oct. 10, 2023
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, consumer price index, accessed Oct. 10, 2023
PolitiFact, "Joe Biden's spending 'has sent prices skyrocketing,'" April 20, 2022
done_all 3.4 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Section 4: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization
To be compliant on funding and organization, applicants must meet these five criteria
- 4.1 Applicants that are independent organizations have a page on their website detailing each source of funding accounting for 5% or more of total revenue for its previous financial year. This page also sets out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
- 4.2 Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.
- 4.3 A statement on the applicant’s website sets out the applicant’s organizational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.
- 4.4 A page on the applicant’s website details the professional biography of all those who, according to the organizational structure and play a significant part in its editorial output.
- 4.5 The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.
Criteria 4.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please confirm whether you are an ‘independent organization’
or ‘the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization’ and share proof of this organizational status.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
Criteria 4.1 is compliant. I have noted and attached one mechanism by which people could communicate with Politifact; here it is through an online form by which people could submit an item that they wished to be fact checked/verified. Furthermore, its relationship to Poynter is clearly stated.
Screen Shot 2023-11-... (62 KB)
done_all 4.1 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 4.2
Proof you meet criteria
If your organization is an “independent organization”, please share a link to the page on your website where you detail your funding and indicate the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
If your organization is “the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization”, please share a link to the statement on your website about your ownership.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
PolitiFact is owned by the nonprofit Poynter Institute for Media Studies, and PolitiFact's editor-in-chief and executive director report to the Poynter president. 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 lifelong journalist Paul Tash in 2004. Tash picked digital journalism executive Conan Gallaty as the new CEO of Times Publishing Co. upon Tash’s retirement in 2022.
https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
Complementing the above answer, the notforprofit status is clearly identified and Poynter's status is noted. I like that there is a link that is headlined "Why Pays for Politifact?"
I mark Criteria 4.2 compliant.
Screen Shot 2023-11-... (122 KB)
done_all 4.2 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 4.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out your organizational structure, making clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I believe the organizational structure--both as it relates to Poynter as well as the staffing--are clearly articulated. As such, I mark Criteria 4.3 as compliant.
done_all 4.3 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 4.4
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out the professional biographies of those who play a significant part in your organization’s editorial output.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
PolitiFact maintains a staff page of employees, contributors and partners. Biographies are also linked from bylines on each fact-check and story.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I believe the staff page and biographies are clearly labeled. I have included the biography of one staff member to show it as an example. At the bottom of the page, you can see that person's recent fact checks listed.
As such, I mark Criteria 4.4 as compliant.
Screen Shot 2023-11-... (507 KB)
Screen Shot 2023-11-... (164 KB)
done_all 4.4 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 4.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you encourage users to communicate with your editorial team.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
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. Sometimes we limit contact information for reporters who have been targeted for online harassment, offering the staff email address of truthometer@politifact.com in its place. That email is regularly monitored by a senior correspondent.
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
The applicant has linked to the "suggest an item to check" that I included as a screen shot above. Additionally, each bio has a link to that person's email address and social media page.
As such, I mark Criteria 4.5 compliant.
done_all 4.5 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Section 5: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology
To be compliant on methodology, applicants must meet these six criteria
- 5.1 The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.
- 5.2 The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and where possible explains the reason for choosing the claim to check.
- 5.3 The applicant sets out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.
- 5.4 The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.
- 5.5 The applicant seeks where possible to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence, noting that (I) this is often not possible with online claims, (II) if the person who makes the claim fails to reply in a timely way this should not impede the fact check, (III) if a speaker adds caveats to the claim, the fact-checker should be free to continue with checking the original claim, (IV) fact-checkers may not wish to contact the person who made the claim for safety or other legitimate reasons.
- 5.6 The applicant encourages users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.
Criteria 5.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to the statement on your website that explains the methodology you use to select, research, write and publish your fact checks.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I think any reasonable person would understand what would be a fact checkable item according to Politifact's code, and the Truth-o-Meter ratings are clearly spelled out. I think it's notable that they've even included "We avoid minor "gotchas" on claims that are obviously a slip of the tongue."
As such, I mark Crtieria 5.1 as compliant.
done_all 5.1 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 5.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To assess and evaluate Criteria 5.2 as compliant, I reviewed the November 2023 fact check from the Republican debate written by Louis Jacobson in which Chris Christie said “In 1992, this country made a promise to Ukraine. We said if you return nuclear missiles that were part of the old Soviet Union to Russia, and they invade you, we will protect you.” That got a "Mostly False" rating and Jacobson explained how and why.
First, he goes back to the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 and the what would happen to its nuclear weapons. Jacobson quotes an expert from the Stimson Center, which is a highly-respected think tank to round out its background.
Then, he explains a report from a former US ambassador. The fact checker continues by providing key details on US foreign policy with key hyperlinks and appropriate context. Through a step-by-step detailing of foreign policy and explanation of primay sourcing including an explanation of nonproliferation treaties, Jacobson explains the rating and the context.
done_all 5.2 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 5.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To assess and rate Criteria 5.3 as compliant, I reviewed the November 10 fact check of an Instagram post that says "Jews did 9/11." The fact check written by Ciara O'Rourke does not waste any time here explaining in the first sentence: "Al-Qaida terrorists were responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, but conspiracy theories implicating other culprits continue to abound on social media."
This is a claim that continues to come up and one in which both the State Department and the Anti-Defamation League have had to address repeatedly, O'Rourke explains.
done_all 5.3 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 5.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
To assess and judge Criteria 5.4 as compliant, I reviewed the October 2023 fact check of Donald Trump's statement at a New Hampshire rally in which he said: "When I came into office, Iran had $70 billion in foreign exchange reserves. … By the time I left, they had nothing. They were broke.” Fact checker Louis Jacobson judged this one as "Mostly False" and claimed the former president had "cited efforts during his presidency to starve Iran’s hard-line religious government of foreign currency, in hopes of hampering the country’s support for militant groups."
Jacobson provided context on the Trump administration pulling out of a nuclear deal. That put sanctions back against Iran in 2018, as Jacobson explained through the words of an international advocacy group. He then artfully explains how that impacts foreign goods and currency, ultimately impacting a country's economy. That is how Jacobson arrived as his evaluation of Trump's claim by taking that and weighing it against foreign currency reserves.
done_all 5.4 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 5.5
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
For Criteria 5.5, I'll review the Shannon Watts fact check related to guns and Sudafed mentioned in the sourcing section, too. This also was written by Louis Jacobson who explained: "In most ways, the process for buying a gun from a federally licensed dealer under federal and Maine law is more stringent than the laws governing the purchase of Sudafed. However, if you choose to purchase from an unlicensed seller, the process will likely be more stringent for buying Sudafed."
In narrative, Jacobson explains that gun control advocate Shannon Watts used X to say it is "harder to buy Sudafed than an AR-15 in Maine." It's not the first time that claim has been made. He explained that Sudafed is governed by the federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 because it can be used to make meth. He then explains how buying a gun differs between a private sale compared to a licensed dealer. He wrote:
"Gun purchases from a federally licensed dealer are easier than buying Sudafed in one way: There are no limits on the numbers of guns that can be purchased at one time, unlike time limits on Sudafed sales.
In other ways, however, buying a gun from a licensed dealer is more complicated than buying Sudafed, said Mark Oliva, managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group.
It requires filling out Form 4473 from the ATF, in which prospective purchasers must attest that they are not prohibited from purchasing guns. Purchasers cannot buy a gun unless they are the intended recipient of the firearm, are not a convicted felon, a fugitive, dishonorably discharged from the U.S. military or are involuntarily committed to a mental health treatment. The completed forms must be kept permanently, including transferring them to the ATF if the seller goes out of business.
Also, the purchaser must pass a screening by the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS."
It's a thorough explanation, and it got the statement from the Moms Demand founder a Half True rating. As such, I rate this item compliant.
done_all 5.5 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 5.6
Proof you meet criteria
Please describe how you encourage users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable. Include links where appropriate. If you do not allow this, explain why.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
It is evident that Politifact has numerous channels by which the public can communicate with its team. I went to its Instagram page and found that under its bio it says "Use #PolitiFactThis to flag a claim for us to check."
As such, I mark Criteria 5.6 compliant.
done_all 5.6 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Section 6: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy
To be compliant on corrections policy, applicants must meet these five criteria
- 6.1 The applicant has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily visible and accessible on the organization’s website or frequently referenced in broadcasts.
- 6.2 The policy sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may justify no response. This policy is adhered to scrupulously.
- 6.3 Where credible evidence is provided that the applicant has made a mistake worthy of correction, the applicant makes a correction openly and transparently, seeking as far as possible to ensure that users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.
- 6.4 The applicant, if an existing signatory, should either on its corrections/complaints page or on the page where it declares itself an IFCN signatory inform users that if they believe the signatory is violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN, with a link to the IFCN site.
- 6.5 If the applicant is the fact-checking unit of a media company, it is a requirement of signatory status that the parent media company has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy.
Criteria 6.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to where you publish on your website your corrections or complaints policy. If you are primarily a broadcaster, please provide evidence you frequently reference your corrections policy in broadcasts.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I'm going to mark Criteria 6.1 as compliant, but I'm going to make a note about navigating to the corrections policy in my summary.
done_all 6.1 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 6.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the corrections policy to verify it meets critera. No additional information needed.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I note that the corrections policy meets the ethical standards one would expect from Poynter. As such, I mark Criteria 6.2 as compliant.
done_all 6.2 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 6.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a short statement about how the policy was adhered to over the previous year (or six months if this is the first application) including evidence of two examples of the responses provided by the applicant to a correction request over the previous year. Where no correction request has been made in the previous year, you must state this in your application, which will be publicly available in the assessment if your application is successful.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
PolitiFact tags articles that have been revised after publication with a “Corrections and Updates” tag. The update, correction or clarification is usually explained at the bottom of the piece with a note. The vast majority of corrections do not require a change in the rating, a testament to our process.
Here are recent examples of how PolitiFact has used its corrections policy:
In June 2023, a fact-check about the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump over classified documents wrongly reported that a conversation involving Trump, an author and publisher took place in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The conversation occurred at his club in Bedminster, New Jersey.
In May 2023, we corrected a math error in a fact-check of President Joe Biden. We revised some of the charts about debt that accumulated on Biden’s watch as the result of a reporter error.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I mark Criteria 6.4 as compliant as you can easily see going to "Corrections and Updates" where the items are that needed to be corrected or updated. These items also note why. As as example, the "Rainbow fentanyl is a threat to children on Halloween" was updated to include a statement from his office.
done_all 6.3 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 6.4
Proof you meet criteria
If you are an existing signatory, please provide a link to show where on your site you inform users that if they believe you are violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN of this, with a link to the complaints page on the IFCN site.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago)
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.
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I can confirm that the IFCN relationship is listed under its About Us-->Our Process page https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/feb/12/principles-truth-o-meter-politifacts-methodology-i/#Our%20participation%20in%20the%20International%20Fact-checking%20Network
done_all 6.4 marked as Compliant by Margot Susca.
Criteria 6.5
Proof you meet criteria
If you are the fact-checking unit of a media company, please provide a link to the parent media company’s honest and open corrections policy and provide evidence that it adheres to this.
PolitiFact
10-Jul-2023 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago
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
Margot Susca Assessor
10-Nov-2023 (10 months ago) Updated: 10 months ago
I mark Criteria 6.5 compliant.