Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Where does factually get facts from
Executive Summary
Factually—or any fact-checking outlet—does not rely on a single information stream; it aggregates and verifies claims using primary source documents, official statements, media transcripts, government reports, expert analysis, and contemporaneous news coverage. Multiple established fact-checking organizations describe similar multi-source verification processes, emphasizing tracing claims back to original contexts and consulting nonpartisan authorities to corroborate facts [1] [2] [3].
1. How Fact-Checkers Say They Build Their Evidence — A Common Playbook
Leading fact-checking organizations describe a consistent methodological pattern: collect the claim, trace it to the original source, and corroborate with authoritative documents or experts. PolitiFact and FactCheck.org publish fact checks that cite primary materials such as C-SPAN transcripts, presidential remarks, campaign filings, and government datasets, showing that verifiers lean heavily on original, attributable materials rather than secondhand summaries [1] [3]. This approach aligns with guidance to "trace claims back to their original context" and to consult nonpartisan agencies and outside experts, reinforcing that primary-source verification is central to their work [3].
2. What “Sources” Typically Mean in Practice — Official Records and Media Transcripts
Fact-checkers routinely extract factual anchors from official and public records: government reports, agency data, public speeches, press releases, and archived media. The documented practices indicate reliance on transcripts from Sunday shows, televised appearances, campaign websites, and adjudicative documents as baseline evidence, which are then cross-checked with subject-matter experts and independent datasets to resolve ambiguities [3]. This method aims to reduce reliance on interpreters and prioritizes material that can be independently retrieved and checked by readers.
3. Independent Verification and Expert Consultation — Closing Gaps
Where primary documents are incomplete or ambiguous, outlets bring in outside experts and nonpartisan agencies to assess technical claims and context. FactCheck.org explicitly describes consulting experts and nonpartisan government sources to verify specialized assertions, demonstrating that expertise functions as a secondary layer of validation when raw documents lack clarity [3]. PolitiFact and Reuters-style outlets follow similar routines, combining documentary evidence with expert perspectives to form a verifiable conclusion [1] [4].
4. Methodological Tools and Literacy — SIFT and Structured Fact-Checking
Journalistic and academic tools like the SIFT method and structured investigative checkpoints institutionalize how claims are evaluated: stop, investigate the source, find better coverage, and trace to original context. This procedural literacy supports both professional fact-checkers and public readers in discerning credibility, emphasizing that method matters as much as the documents themselves [5]. Schools of fact-checking adopt start-up and midpoint review meetings in investigative work to challenge hypotheses and ensure consistently applied standards [6].
5. Digital Data and Platform Traces — New Evidence Streams
Contemporary verification increasingly uses digital trace data — social media APIs, archived posts, metadata, and platform records — to reconstruct timelines and verify whether content appeared as claimed. Research on digital trace methods shows these tools enable granular analyses of misinformation spread and algorithmic amplification, expanding the fact-checking toolbox beyond static documents to include platform-level evidence when available [7]. This introduces both powerful verification possibilities and privacy/ethics considerations that outlets must navigate.
6. Tools, Third-Party Databases, and Credibility Scores — Supplementary Signals
Fact-checkers and information consumers also use third-party tools—credibility scoring platforms and browser extensions—to flag patterns or prior adjudications. Initiatives cataloging misinformation, media literacy courses, and automated fact-checking aids serve as supplementary resources that can speed triage and surface prior investigations, though professional fact-checks still require direct citation of primary material and expert corroboration [8]. These auxiliary tools reflect an ecosystem approach but should not substitute for original-source tracing.
7. Competing Agendas and Transparency Expectations — What Readers Should Watch For
Different outlets and platforms present similar methods but can diverge in emphasis or transparency; institutional biases, funding sources, and editorial priorities shape what gets investigated and how. Readers should look for explicit citations to original documents, clear descriptions of expert consultation, and disclosure of methodology and funding to assess potential agendas. The documented practices from PolitiFact, Reuters-style fact-checking, and FactCheck.org show convergence on primary-source verification but vary in presentation and procedural transparency [1] [4] [2] [3].
Conclusion: The consistent, multi-source answer to “where do fact-checkers get their facts?” is that they start with primary documents and public records, corroborate with experts and datasets, and increasingly incorporate digital trace evidence and third-party tools—while expecting transparency about methods and potential institutional influences [1] [3] [7].