This is the landing page of The Fact Checker within The Washington Post website: www.washingtonpost.com/factchecker There is also an extensive "About The Fact Checker" page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/  Key section: "Since 2013, The Washington Post has been owned by Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, as a personal investment via Nash Holdings LLC. The Fact Checker is part of the national-news section of The Post, which is managed separately from the editorial and opinion section of The Post.”

Both the Washington Post Fact Checker site and its description are available and clear. Criteria 1.1 is compliant. 

1. The Fact Checker was started in September 2007 to provide fact checks during the 2008 presidential election. It was revived in January 2011, under the direction of Glenn Kessler, as a permanent feature of The Washington Post.

2. The Fact Checker is primarily two people -- Kessler and one video producer, who also writes stories. 

3. We aim to have a fact check at least two times a week. Fact checks are both in written form and in videos. We also produce a weekly newsletter with nearly 400,000 subscribers.We have undertaken a number of projects.  In mid-2020, via Scribner, we published a best-selling book on President Trump's falsehoods: https://www.amazon.com/Donald-Trump-His-Assault-Truth/dp/1982151072  In 2021, we created a database of every false or misleading statement made by President Biden in the first 100 days: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/biden-fact-checker-100-days/ We also created a guide on how to label manipulated video in 2019: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/fact-checker/manipulated-video-guide/ And in 2022, we assessed whether any proposed gun laws would have made a difference in preventing gun violence in the United States since 2015: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/uvalde-buffalo-mass-shootings-gun-control-laws/?itid=sf_fact-checker

4. To fact check statements made by President Biden, lawmakers and advocacy groups. We focus especially on statements made by people in position of power. We also increasingly are writing longer form narratives that trace how misinformation is spread. (Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/01/how-falsehood-athletes-dying-covid-vaccines-spread/) We also will maintain a focus on highlighting examples of manipulated video. (In early 2021: we produced a Instagram guide to spotting manipulated video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/19/how-spot-fake-video/?itid=sf_fact-checker)

All four parts of Criteria 1.2 are answered, and I mark this section compliant. 

The landing page of The Fact Checker includes an archival function so you can view fact checks by month: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2019/05/?utm_term=.3b201c8a35a2 We aim for at least two fact checks a week. 

I can confirm the volume of fact checks published stated in the application mean that the Washington Post Fact Checker is compliant in Criteria 1.3. 

Using the Fact Checker website available here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/ I reviewed a series of fact checks published over the last three months. Subsequent sections will explain methodology, nonpartisanship, and sourcing for fact checks dating back to June 2022, but this review demonstrates Washington Post Fact Checker is compliant in Criteria 1.4. 

We receive no such funding. The Washington Post is an independent newspaper. 

Criteria 1.5 is compliant as the Washington Post and its fact check arm have no relationship to state, politicians, or political parties in the US or elsewhere.  

n/a

This criteria does not apply; I am marking it compliant. 

Our goals and standards are described in the "About The Fact Checker" page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/?utm_term=.c83168ea8aad We strive to apply The Pinocchio Test consistently and fairly, frequently referring back to previous fact checks to make sure we rate similar types of claims in the same manner. Over 12 years, we have written thousands of fact checks. We seek items to fact check based on whether the claim is newsworthy and would help to advance better understanding of complex policy issues. We hope to fact check a similar number of claims from each party, though we do not engage in a "counting" exercise that would result in a lowering of the standard of what we fact check. I have attached ten full-fledged fact checks. Our fact checks may come in both text and video formats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/27/so-far-trumps-rollback-regulations-cant-be-blamed-ohio-train-wreck/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/07/fact-checking-president-bidens-2023-state-union-address/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/21/how-hunter-biden-conspiracy-theory-grew-lone-tweet-big-megaphone/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/14/debunked-claims-faux-facts-supporting-trumps-plan-execute-drug-dealers/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/04/stephen-millers-disingenuous-ad-charging-anti-white-racism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/01/truth-about-election-fraud-its-rare/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/gop-claim-that-democrats-support-abortion-up-moment-birth/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/08/hillary-clintons-claim-that-zero-emails-were-marked-classified/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/uvalde-buffalo-mass-shootings-gun-control-laws/?itid=sf_fact-checker

I can confirm that the About the Fact Checker page written by Glenn Kessler, who has run the site for more than a decade, explains its commitment to fact checking a range of claims across the political spectrum. I reviewed several of the fact checks included in the application as well as others not listed including one from March 1, 2023 headlined: "Nikki Haley’s bogus claims about foreign aid dollars" and Feb. 15's "Biden linked covid to a spike in violent crime. He omitted factors." 

A sample of these will be explained more in detail in subsequent sections of this assessment, but I see a range of topics across the political spectrum chosen for analysis.  

Furthermore, the site explains under its "A Few Basic Principles" subhead that it checks facts, not opinions. Under that section, the Fact Checker site also explains: "We will focus our attention and resources on the issues that are most important to voters. We cannot nitpick every detail of every speech. We especially try to examine statements that are newsworthy or concern issues of importance. We understand that everyone makes mistakes, especially when speaking extemporaneously, so we do not play "gotcha.""

I mark Criteria 2.1 as compliant.  

This is described in the "About The Fact Checker" page, under the section "A Few Basic Principles": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/?utm_term=.c83168ea8aad

The Fact Checker site explains clearly in its About the Fact Checker page its mission and role, going so far as to engage readers to connect with the staff. Its site explains: "The purpose of this website, and an accompanying column in the Sunday print edition of The Washington Post, is to “truth squad” the statements of political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international or local. It’s a big world out there, and so we rely on readers to ask questions and point out statements that need to be checked.

But we are not limited to political charges or countercharges. We also seek to explain difficult issues, provide missing context and provide analysis and explanation of various “code words” used by politicians, diplomats and others to obscure or shade the truth. The Fact Checker is at heart about policy -- domestic and foreign -- as we have found that politicians are apt to be more misleading about complex and difficult-to-understand topics."

The About page also mentions awards for its coverage which explained it as “clear, deliberate and never hyperbolic.” As such, I mark Criteria 2.2 compliant.

To assess Criteria 2.3 I reviewed the following fact check from Feb. 7, 2023 written by Glenn Kessler: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/07/fact-checking-president-bidens-2023-state-union-address/

with the headline: "Fact-checking President Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address"

The fact check notes speeches don't warrant the typical Pinocchio scale, but it explained at the onset that the fact check would focus on 13 claims. The first, a claim President BIden made about job creation, garners a "misleading" tag from Kessler. Kessler continued: "But it’s hard to untangle the impact of that bill from similar pandemic-related bills passed under Trump."

I see no evidence of liberal or conservative bias in the fact checking of these 13 claims. As such, I mark this criteria compliant. 

For this item, I reviewed the Nov. 4, 2022 fact check headlined: "Stephen Miller’s disingenuous ad charging ‘anti-White’ racism" written by Kessler. The item may be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/11/04/stephen-millers-disingenuous-ad-charging-anti-white-racism/ 

Fact checking a group that calls itself the conservative ACLU, Kessler quotes the ad: “Joe Biden put white people last in line for covid relief funds.” Kessler explained: "This line inaccurately describes what happened. There was an effort to let minority groups get in line first for restaurant relief — but many White people, such as women and veterans, had equal access."

As such, I mark Criteria 2.4 compliant. 

This is described in the "About The Fact Checker" page, under the section "A Few Basic Principles": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/?utm_term=.c83168ea8aad There is also a link to a detailed discussion of Washington Post policies on non-partisanship: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/guidelines/corrections.html?tid=a_inl

The Washington Post and its fact check unit have clear guidelines establishing a commitment to nonpartisanship. 

The Fact Checker site explains: "Consistent with Washington Post policy, no one working on The Fact Checker may engage in partisan political activity or make contributions to candidates or advocacy organizations. Since 2013, The Washington Post has been owned by Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, as a personal investment via Nash Holdings LLC. The Fact Checker is part of the national-news section of The Post, which is managed separately from the editorial and opinion section of The Post. In 2019, The Fact Checker received a $250,000 grant from Google News Initiative/YouTube to expand production of video fact checks."

As such, I mark Criteria 2.5 compliant. 

Using the State of the Union fact check mentioned above, the sources used included: the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census Bureau data, and Semiconductor Industry Association (a trade group) among others. 

Biden said: "“It’s not fair the idea that in 2020, 55 of the biggest companies in America, the Fortune 500, made $40 billion in profits and paid zero in federal income taxes? Zero.” Kessler wrote: "This is one of Biden’s favorite statistics. According to factba.se, which tracks his statements, the president has used it in speeches or interviews more than two dozen times since the last State of the Union address. It’s not necessarily wrong, but there are some limitations — the number is not based on actual tax returns but instead is an estimate of taxes paid based on corporate reports." To fact check that item and provide it context, Kessler explained that Biden turns to a "left leaning" group that reviews SEC data to make that claim. To give the item more context, Kessler turned to what he referred to as the "nonpartisan" Joint Committee on Taxation from Congress. 

As such, I mark Criteria 3.1 compliant. 

To address compliance with its sources, I reviewed the fact check headlined "Tennessee congressman Andrew Ogles’s résumé is too good to be true " and written by Kessler on March 10, 2023. 

Kessler explained that Ogles had been the subject of a local TV station's reporting that he had misstated, among other things, his college major. Ogles called himself an economist. Kessler set out to learn more about the politician writing, "Now The Fact Checker has uncovered more evidence of résumé inflation by Ogles — this time about his business career — that sheds light on a politician who said in his recent congressional campaign that you shouldn’t be in Congress “'if you don’t have the integrity to just be you and run on what you’ve done.'”

To make that claim and award the "whopper" four Pinnochios designation, Kessler used the following sources:  Ogles's LinkedIn page, Ogles's statements tracked on C-Span, Tennessee public records (on business incorporation), and a Bank of America spokesman. 

 I mark criteria 3.2 compliant. 

To further address compliance with its sources, I reviewed the fact check headlined "So far, Trump’s rollback of regulations can’t be blamed for Ohio train wreck " and written by Kessler on February 27, 2023. Kessler noted: "From our analysis, none of the regulatory changes made during the Trump administration at this point can be cited as contributing to the accident." 

To state this, Kessler used the following sources: a Trump spokesman, a report from the National Transportation Safety Board, Government Accountability report, Cynthia Quarterman, "who helped write the rule as administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration during the Obama administration," and the Federal Railroad Administration. 

I mark Criteria 3.3 compliant. 

For the final review of the Fact Checker's use of source, I reviewed the "Biden linked covid to a spike in violent crime. He omitted factors" item dated February 15, 2023. Kessler wrote, "Crime data often takes a long time to collect — and trends that cause crime rates to fluctuate are not readily apparent." To judge Biden's claim and note its TKT, Kessler used the following sources: FBI statistics, a U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime report, co-author of a report by the Council on Criminal Justice (by email), Thomas Abt, the "founding director at the University of Maryland’s Violence Reduction Center" (interview and congressional testimony), and the Statistics and Public Policy journal. 

I mark Criteria 3.4 compliant due to this range of sources. 

The Fact Checker is a fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization.

The Fact Checker's relationship to the Washington Post is clearly identified. Any reasonable person would be able to understand the role of the Fact Checker specifically and The Washington Post generally in the fact checking and journalism spaces. Additionally, the Post's relationship to its owner, Jeff Bezos, is clearly articulated. 

As such, I mark Criteria 4.1 compliant. 

On the "About The Fact Checker" page, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/, it says: "Since 2013, The Washington Post has been owned by Jeff Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, as a personal investment via Nash Holdings LLC. The Fact Checker is part of the national-news section of The Post, which is managed separately from the editorial and opinion section of The Post.”

Elaborating on Criteria 4.1, Criteria 4.2 is compliant as its relationship to the Post and the newspaper's private owner are clearly articulated online. 

On the "About The Fact Checker" page, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/ Kessler is the editor of The Fact Checker, responsible for editorial decisions regarding content. The Fact Checker team has complete independence to decide what to fact check and what ratings to make. Within The Washington Post, The Fact Checker is part of the national-news section of The Post, specifically the democracy team. The "About The Fact Checker" page highlights that Kessler is the editor -- both in his biography and in the discussion of the staff -- and also include the names of the national editor, the senior national investigations editor and democracy-team editor of The Post who oversee The Fact Checker operation in consultation with Kessler.

The site is clear on how it fact checks, who is fact checking, and why the fact checking is being done. Kessler, who has four decades of experience in journalism, is clearly the head of the unit. Biographies also explain other staff members and their work plus their backgrounds. 

Furthermore, the site explains the organizational hierarchy: "Matea Gold is the national editor of The Washington Post, Peter Wallsten is the senior national investigations editor and Mary Jo Murphy is deputy edtor on the democracy team. Kessler reports to Murphy. Peter Stevenson is the senior producer for Fact Checker videos."

As such, I mark Criteria 4.3 compliant. 

A bio of the author appears at the bottom of each fact check. The "About The Fact Checker" page provides extensive detail on Glenn Kessler, who has run The Fact Checker since 2011: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/?utm_term=.c83168ea8aad Shorter bios of other members of the team are also listed, along with links to more extensive biographies.

Kessler and his staff plus their roles are labeled and described clearly. The site goes so far as to list past members of its fact checking team. I have included a screen shot of that description and bios as an example to demonstrate compliance with Criteria 4.4.                                                                                                            

There is a contact form at the bottom of each fact check. (NOTE: the format for the previous form we used was unfortunately discontinued in late 2022, so clicking the link on earlier fact checks will only take you to the Washington Post landing page.) The bio of the authors also provides email and Twitter contacts, as does the "About The Fact Checker" page. Many fact checks are the result of reader queries. 

I mark Criteria 4.5 compliant and I would like to note its narrative engagement with readers. The About page explains: "The success of this project depends, to a great extent, on the involvement of you--the reader. About 50 percent of our fact checks start with an inquiry from a reader. Readers send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups, and the media. Once we have posted an item on a subject, we invite your comments and contributions. You can follow us on Twitter at GlennKesslerWP or friend us on Facebook. We welcome comments and suggestions via tweets (Include #FactCheckThis in your tweet) or on our Facebook page. You can also email us at factchecker@washpost.com."

Any reasonable member of the audience would understand they both are encouraged to engage with the site and be an active part of it on social media as well. 

This is outlined on the "About The Fact Checker" page: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/about-the-fact-checker/?utm_term=.a81654a2820e We have also produced a video for that page which takes viewers inside our process and how we conduct fact checks. That appears at the top of the "About The Fact Checker" page but can also be viewed via this link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/about-the-fact-checker/2019/05/09/919c0fa2-4301-4ab2-9ce0-3176c500fb8a_video.html 

The Fact Checker site easily explains how and why it selects, researches, writes, and publishes its catalog of fact checks. As such, I mark Criteria 5.1 compliant. 

To assess methodology, I used the "Tennessee congressman Andrew Ogles’s résumé is too good to be true" fact check also used in the Source section above. Kessler explains how he fact checked various statements/biographical information forwarded by the congressman. Kessler explains each section related to Ogles's "inflated resume," his public statements about his work, and his biography including professional experience. 

As an example, Kessler wrote: "Ogles lists impressive achievements as an executive at E. Net Media & Consulting of Nashville from 2003 to 2010. (The résumé says he was an executive vice president, but his 2015 LinkedIn profile described him as president and owner.) The résumé states that at E. Net Media he represented “a variety of clients ranging from small start ups to Fortune 500 companies.” We could not corroborate his assertions."No corporate record exists for E. Net in Tennessee state records, although Ogles has set up other corporate entities, public records show. Tennessee corporate records show two companies with similar names were formed by other people before 2003, but neither was associated with Ogles.

As such, I mark Criteria 5.2 compliant. 

To further assess the Fact Checker's compliance with methodology, I reviewed the following fact check "Nikki Haley’s bogus claims about foreign aid dollars" written by Kessler on Marc 1, 2023. Kessler explained: "Instead, she suggests that foreign aid goes directly to governments, especially ones with policies that are at odds with the interests of the United States. That’s wrong. The dirty little secret of foreign aid is that most of it never leaves the United States — and it goes right into the pockets of U.S. companies. Some countries receive direct grants of aid, but those are certainly not “'enemies.'” 

To explain, Kessler's methodology notes how he fact checks the claim by using data and reports from a range of sources: 

"By raw dollars, the United States gives more foreign aid than any other country. But when measured as a percentage of a country’s economy, the United States is far behind nations such as Britain, Norway, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. The United Nations has set a target of contributing 0.7 percent of gross national income in development aid; the United States clocks in with less than 0.2 percent, near the bottom of the list of major democracies, according to a 2020 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Advertisement

Now we should explore who benefits from foreign aid. Much of the time, this aid does not actually leave U.S. shores. Then, if it does, it generally goes to nongovernmental organizations, not host governments. The exception might be direct cash transfers as a reward for counterterrorism operations to countries that support the United States, such as Turkey and Jordan, or Egypt and Israel for signing the Camp David Accords, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Very little since the 1970s has been spent on direct construction of roads, irrigation systems, electric power facilities or similar projects, CRS said."

As such, I mark Criteria 5.3 compliant. 

For Criteria 5.4 I assessed "What’s more common: A ‘good guy’ without a gun — or with one?" published January 31, 2023 after the mass shootings in California. Kessler contrasted the statements of a man in California who helped tackle the gunman with those made by Sen. Ted Cruz that "Armed good guys stopping armed bad guys.”

To investigate the claim, Kessler first provided background on the California shooting as well as another in Indiana where a guy with a gun shot another guy. Kessler wrote: "Two narratives: A “good guy” without a gun. A “good guy” with a gun. Whether one is more common than the other depends on the data you use — though among all such shooting attacks, neither is the norm. The vast majority of more than 430 “active-shooter” incidents catalogued by the FBI since 2000 ended when the shooter fled, when law enforcement killed or apprehended the shooter, or when the shooter died by suicide."

Using the FBI data, Kessler explained the difficulty in assessing the claims, but noted: "The FBI reports suggest that about three times as many citizens without a gun have ended an active-shooting incident as citizens with a gun." Kessler continued noting another university's tracking of the FBI data: "This data shows that since 2000, citizens without a gun have halted nearly twice as many incidents (42) as citizens with guns who were not commissioned law enforcement officers (22). If security personnel or off-duty officers are excluded from the list, the number with a gun drops to 12." 

For even more context, Kessler interviewed a guns rights advocate who claims the FBI numbers are incorrect and show that even fewer "good guy with gun" incidents existed historically. 

Due to the thorough explanation of both facts and contexts, I mark Criteria 5.4 compliant. 

To close out the assessment of the Fact Checker's methodology, I reviewed its analysis of the item headlined, "Mass killings since 2015: Could proposed laws have made a difference?" that included both Kessler's work and the Fact Checker's video producer. By examining both mass shootings and political responses Kessler explained: "The takeaway is nuanced: Only about one-third of these mass killings might have been prevented by any major proposals. But some ideas — such as not allowing people under age 21 to buy assault rifles and banning ammunition storage and feeding devices known as magazines that hold more than 10 rounds — might have minimized the bloodshed. Improvements to the country’s background check system could make a difference as well, though it’s not clear how many lives would have been saved by the relatively modest changes that are part of the tentative Senate agreement, which would require a mandatory search of juvenile justice and mental health records of buyers younger than 21 and seek to clarify who needs to obtain a federal firearm license." 

Later in the fact check analsysis, Kessler explained they focused on legislation aimed at reducing gun access or gun ownership loopholes. Its methodology is explained at the bottom of the fact check. I have attached it as an example of high standards and which show. me that Criteria 5.5 is compliant. 

At the bottom of each fact check, there is a link to this form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSe01K2h8TbgfMF2z2Ryjw_bziOd_a3rlanmgfuASZLtXXsr_g/viewform (NOTE: the format for the previous form we used was unfortunately discontinued in late 2022, so clicking the link on earlier fact checks will only take you to the Washington Post landing page.) We also provide an email contact on the About The Fact Checker page. The criteria for fact checks is listed on the About The Fact Checker page:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/

This assessment complements criteria 4.5 and 2.2 where any reasonable person would understand the scope and breadth of the work the Fact Checker engages with and also understand how to submit claims or issues to be reviewed. As such, I mark Criteria 5.6 compliant. 

The About the Fact Checker page links to The Washington Post's policies on corrections: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/guidelines/corrections.html?tid=a_inl

The Fact Checker site has an open and clear corrections policy. As such, I mark Criteria 6.1 compliant. 

This is the Washington Post corrections policy is comprehensive; all material that follows is taken verbatim from its Policies and Standards website page. 

Corrections

If we are substantively correcting an article, photo caption, headline, graphic, video or other material, we should promptly publish a correction explaining the change.

Clarifications

When our journalism is factually correct but the language we used to explain those facts is not as clear or detailed as it should be, the language should be rewritten and a clarification added to the story. A clarification can also be used to note that we initially failed to seek a comment or response that has since been added to the story or that new reporting has shifted our account of an event.

Editor’s notes

A correction that calls into question the entire substance of an article, raises a significant ethical matter or addresses whether an article did not meet our standards, may require an editor’s note and be followed by an explanation of what is at issue. A senior editor must approve the addition of an editor’s note to a story.

Other corrections policies

When an error is found by a reader and posted to the comment stream, the audience engagement team should indicate in comments that it has been corrected.

If we have sent out incorrect information in an alert, we should send out an alert informing people that the news reported in the earlier alert was wrong and give readers the accurate information.

When we publish erroneous information on social networks, we should correct it on that platform.

We do not attribute blame to individual reporters or editors (e.g. “because of a reporting error” or “because of an editing error”). But we may note that an error was the result of a production problem or because incorrect information came to us from a trusted source (wire services, individuals quoted, etc.). 

The Washington Post correction policy requires major errors to be noted at the top of the article and minor errors at the bottom of the article; a Washington Post managing editor must approve the designation of a minor error. Here are two examples of fact checks that were corrected:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/23/debra-meadows-appears-have-filed-three-false-voter-forms/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/15/biden-linked-covid-spike-violent-crime-he-omitted-factors/

I mark Criteria 6.3 as compliant, and I note that while reviewing the Covid/Biden item listed in the Sources section, I noticed at the top of the fact check the attached correction. It was clear. I also reviewed the two corrections included in the Fact Checker's application, and these also show a commitment to transparency. 

This is at the end of the "About The Fact Checker" page, where the IFCN badge is displayed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/about-fact-checker/

I can confirm that the About page lists the IFCN badge and its relationship to the IFCN Code is clearly articulated. I have included a screen shot of that section of the page. I mark Criteria 6.4 compliant. 

The Washington Post publishes corrections every day and makes it easy for readers to submit a correction request: https://helpcenter.washingtonpost.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003675928-Submit-a-correction

The site clearly explains its corrections policy, and it provides an easy way for readers to submit a correction should the need arise. As such I mark Criteria 6.5 compliant.