Fact-check

1. Who’s doing the fact‑checking — and what do they cover?

Major independent fact‑checking organizations named in recent search results include FactCheck.org, Reuters Fact Check, Snopes, PolitiFact, AP Fact Check, DW Fact Check and Poynter’s fact‑checking coverage; each publishes regular debunks of viral political, policy and social‑media claims ^{[1] [2] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]}. Their output ranges from short “true/false” style checks to longer explainers and archives of past debunks, meaning readers can often find both a headline verdict and deeper sourcing in the same outlet ^{[3] [9]}.

2. Example: the $2,000 tariff‑dividend claim

FactCheck.org specifically addressed the claim that U.S. citizens would receive $2,000 “dividend” or stimulus checks funded by tariff revenue, concluding “No checks are being issued” and noting no formal plan approved by Congress and expert skepticism about sufficient tariff revenue ^{[1] [3]}. That response highlights a common pattern: political statements sometimes describe proposals or intentions, but independent fact‑checkers distinguish between rhetoric and enacted policy or legally funded programs ^[1].

3. Example: supermarket entry‑fee viral video

Reuters Fact Check published a targeted debunk of a widely shared video claiming British supermarkets would charge entry fees beginning December 7, calling that claim false and noting the video’s misleading presentation ^[2]. Reuters’ approach shows how fact‑checks often focus on concrete, time‑bound assertions that can be confirmed or disproved through retailer statements and policy timelines ^[2].

4. How fact‑checkers document methodology and limits

Outlets make methodology explicit in different ways: FactCheck.org and Snopes host archives and thematic pages cataloging debunks and explain how they worked with platforms in prior years; Poynter covers meta‑issues like using AI to spot misinformation; Media Bias/Fact Check curates fact‑checks and evaluates the fact‑checkers themselves ^{[3] [9] [8] [10]}. These disclosures help readers evaluate the robustness of a debunk, but available sources do not mention a single standardized industry rubric that all organizations follow (not found in current reporting).

5. Competing perspectives and where disagreement appears

When sources disagree, it’s typically about emphasis or context rather than core facts: for example, an official or political figure may assert a future program will be funded in a particular way, while fact‑checkers point out no law or appropriation exists yet ^[1]. Some outlets (e.g., MBFC) add a layer by rating bias and “fact‑checkers of fact‑checkers,” which introduces debate over interpretation and selection of items to check ^{[10] [11]}. Readers should note the implicit agendas: outlets may prioritize particular claim types (policy vs. viral videos) and MBFC’s mission is explicitly to evaluate bias as well as factual accuracy ^[10].

6. Practical takeaways for readers encountering viral claims

Check for a current, primary source (law text, company announcement, government statement) and see whether multiple independent fact‑checkers have addressed the item — FactCheck.org, Reuters, Snopes and AP are frequently cited in the sample results ^{[1] [2] [4] [6]}. If a claim reflects a political promise, treat it as a statement of intent until Congress or an agency enacts it; if it’s a time‑specific operational claim (like supermarket fees), look for the company’s direct statements or regulator guidance ^{[1] [2]}.

7. Limitations of current reporting and what’s not covered

The search results provide many examples of fact‑checks but do not supply the full text of methodologies across all organizations, nor do they include every recent, granular correction for late 2025; for example, comprehensive cross‑organization statistics on error rates or a unified code of practice are not present in the results (not found in current reporting). Also, while several high‑profile items are cited (tariff checks, supermarket fee video, NYC mayoral falsehoods), available sources do not enumerate every viral claim circulating in November 2025 (not found in current reporting).

Bottom line: multiple, reputable fact‑checking outlets are actively debunking prominent November 2025 claims and offer searchable archives and methodological notes; when a claim concerns enacted policy or company rules, check for a primary source and corroboration from more than one fact‑checking outlet ^{[1] [2] [3]}.