Applicant: Krishna Karthik Madhavapeddi
Assessor: Surekha Deepak
Edits made by the organization after this assessment
IFCN Staff wrote:
1. FactChecker.in focuses on data-based fact-checking of statements of people in public life, as against debunking other fake news being circulated on social media. An overwhelming proportion of such claims are made by the government or government departments.
2. We have updated our income and expenditure details, as required: https://factchecker.in/about-us/trustees-patrons/
Conclusion and recommendations
Surekha Deepak wrote:
The organisation has complied with most of the principles.
It is a fact checking organisation and meets the requirements of publishing atleast one one fact-check a week.
The claims verified are based on the areas they have listed out in the about us page ‘: health, sanitation, law and justice, education, environment, employment, innovation, science, environment and disadvantaged groups.
While a majority of the stories verify government claims there are a couple of stories that verify the opposition claims too, as well as one who is a ‘spiritual leader’
I have read the complaint and did not find the bias to make a claim that the purpose of the fact check is to benefit one party or the other. More importantly the fact checking is accurate.
FactChecker has provided links to data they have collected as an example for stories they are compiling data where no official database exists. These stories are not actual fact checks nor can they be verified. They have disclosed the data based stories they cover on the website.
It states a clear policy on against advocacy for all its employees.
Nearly all key sources are linked, so is the evidence it provides.
Stories are backed with reportage from the location. Links to some data based stories are not available to be replicated, however the methodology is explained.
Details of funding are explained. The major sources of funds from donors are trustees are explained. However no details of expenditure is provided.
The team members and their profiles are clearly listed.
Contact details are listed on the website, so it it easy to contact them.
Its methodology is explained and readers can send claims to be checked. However, it is not clear if all claims they receive can be verified.
The corrections made are on a not available on all platforms, as required to be fully compliant.