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.
How does factually work to stay impartial
Executive Summary
Factually seeks to stay impartial by funding itself through small donations, refusing political-group funding, documenting its methodology, and presenting multiple viewpoints and primary sources to support claims; this approach is explicitly described on its site and summarized in recent analysis [1]. Impartiality in practice also relies on established evaluation norms, legal standards for factual records, and active mitigation of cognitive biases—each contributing distinct, evidence-based steps to reduce bias in fact-finding [2] [3] [4].
1. What proponents say Factually pledges—and why that matters
Factually publicly states that it avoids funding from political organizations and instead relies primarily on small individual donations, which it presents as a structural safeguard against partisan influence; this funding claim is documented in a June 17, 2025 summary of Factually’s practices and is central to its neutrality narrative [1]. Funding transparency is a core element because financial independence directly affects editorial incentives and perceived credibility, and small-donor models are frequently cited by fact-checkers as a way to minimize large donor influence. Factually also emphasizes method transparency—listing sources and offering multiple perspectives within each fact-check—which aligns with best practices for reducing accusations of selective evidence use. The site’s explicit combination of funding policy and source transparency forms a two-pronged approach intended to protect both actual and perceived impartiality [1].
2. Formal standards and institutional expectations that shape impartial work
Impartiality in evaluation and investigative contexts is governed by formal norms that prioritize objectivity, professional integrity, and absence of bias at all stages; these principles are articulated in evaluation guidelines such as UNEG norms and echoed in practice-focused guidance on building factual records [2] [3]. For example, U.S. regulatory standards require investigators to assemble an impartial, appropriate factual record through minimum training and evidence-gathering obligations—procedural safeguards designed to produce conclusions a reasonable factfinder can support [3]. Those standards highlight that impartiality is not merely a stance but a set of procedures—training, non‑adversarial evidence collection, and documentation—that institutions must implement to ensure findings withstand scrutiny. Factually’s emphasis on sourcing and documentation maps onto these procedural expectations, but the legal and institutional frameworks show additional layers—training, adjudicative safeguards, and remedial design—that independent fact checkers may not match without institutional mechanisms [3] [2].
3. Philosophical and definitional complexity behind impartial claims
Impartiality is conceptually contested across moral, epistemic, and formal dimensions, and philosophical accounts show that staying impartial requires more than declaring neutrality: it requires assessing duties, perspectives, and standards of evidence [5]. Academic treatments emphasize that different senses of impartiality can pull in distinct directions—for example, an epistemically impartial approach focuses on disinterested evaluation of evidence, while a moral impartiality lens might demand explicit balancing of competing interests. This complexity means an organization claiming neutrality must clarify which standard it follows; Factually’s approach appears grounded in epistemic impartiality—documenting evidence and citing primary sources—without formal claims to moral balancing or legal adjudication. Recognizing these conceptual distinctions helps explain why impartiality claims invite scrutiny: they rest on contested definitions and operational choices [5].
4. Cognitive biases: threats and practical countermeasures for fact‑checking
Research identifies dozens of cognitive biases that can compromise fact‑checking, and systematic reviews recommend concrete countermeasures—bias-aware pipelines, cross-checking, and structured methodologies—to mitigate those risks [4]. Health-care and media guides stress the importance of self-reflection, perspective-taking, and transparent tools to reduce unconscious influences on judgment; these human-centered practices are complementary to procedural safeguards and relevant for independent fact-checkers who lack formal investigator training [6] [7]. Implementing bias countermeasures requires explicit operational steps—checklists, peer review, and documented methodological choices—so impartiality becomes verifiable rather than asserted. Factually’s practice of presenting multiple viewpoints and citing primary sources aligns with these recommendations, yet the research underscores the need for continual bias-awareness measures and independent review to strengthen credibility [4] [7].
5. Where practices meet constraints: assessing gaps and trade-offs
The combination of small-donor funding, methodological transparency, and multi-source presentation addresses key impartiality risks, but institutional and procedural gaps remain: legal investigative standards rely on mandated training and adjudicative structures that independent outlets typically lack, and philosophical disputes over the meaning of neutrality mean audiences may still question balance [3] [5]. Cognitive-bias research shows that adherence to best practices must be ongoing and audited; claims of neutrality require demonstrable, repeatable procedures. Factually’s stated practices correspond to many recommended steps—funding rules, source plurality, and methodological notes—but the broader literature suggests impartiality is a continuous process, not a one-time policy, and benefits from external review, explicit bias-mitigation checklists, and disclosures about limits [1] [4] [7].
6. Bottom line: impartiality is achievable but needs layered defenses
Achieving factual impartiality requires layering financial safeguards, transparent methods, procedural rigor, and active bias mitigation; Factually’s model—small donations, multi-source citation, and methodological transparency—addresses major vulnerabilities and aligns with contemporary recommendations [1] [7]. Institutional standards and legal frameworks add further safeguards through mandatory training and formal evidence practices that enhance credibility in adjudicative contexts; independent fact-checkers can approximate these standards but must document how they replicate critical safeguards [3] [2]. The literature collectively shows impartiality is a pragmatic, procedural achievement rather than a simple declaration, and readers should evaluate claims by looking for documented methods, funding transparency, bias countermeasures, and external review to judge how effectively an organization stays impartial [5] [4].