Check a claim before you share it
Directory
Each entry says what the tool is good for and who runs it. Telling people to use a fact-checker without teaching them to check the fact-checker repeats the original problem, so the funding line is not optional here.
Google Images, TinEye, Bing Visual Search
Finds earlier appearances of a photo. The single highest-yield check available, because relabelled real photos are everywhere.
Who runs it: Free tools operated by the search companies themselves.
wikipedia.org
Not a citation, but excellent for the source-investigation move: who owns an outlet, who funds an organisation, when it was founded. Check the references at the bottom rather than the prose.
Who runs it: Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit.
snopes.com
Long-running fact-checking outlet. Strong on viral claims, images and urban legends. Publishes its methodology and a corrections policy.
Who runs it: Advertising and reader contributions; ownership history is public.
politifact.com
Political claims, with a rating scale. Reading the evidence section matters more than the rating itself.
Who runs it: Poynter Institute, a journalism nonprofit.
factcheck.org
Political and health claims, notably careful with numbers.
Who runs it: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania.
apnews.com, reuters.com
Wire-service verification desks. Useful because their core business is being right rather than being fast.
Who runs it: The news agencies themselves.
allsides.com, ground.news
Show how the same story is covered across outlets. Useful for the framing exercise. Their own bias ratings are judgements, so treat them as a starting point rather than a verdict.
Who runs it: AllSides is a company; Ground News is a company with a subscription model.
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Broad database of outlets. Widely used, and worth knowing that its ratings are produced by a small team rather than a formal panel, so it is a signal and not an authority.
Who runs it: Advertising and subscriptions; run by a small independent team.
Inclusion is not an endorsement of every verdict any of these organisations has published. It means they are identifiable, they say who pays for them, and they can be checked against each other. That is the bar.