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.
Can one ask for a fact check on any topic or subject
Executive summary
Yes — individuals and organizations routinely ask for fact checks on almost any topic, but who will respond, how they choose items to check, and the depth of verification varies by outlet and purpose. Fact-checking is the practice of verifying claims both before and after publication (external and internal checks) and many established fact‑checking organizations invite public questions while also prioritizing claims with broad importance or reach [1] [2] [3].
1. Who accepts requests: you can ask many fact‑checkers directly
Major nonprofit and platform-affiliated fact‑checkers explicitly invite reader submissions: FactCheck.org publishes an “Ask FactCheck” channel and asks readers to email claims (including where they saw them) to Editor@FactCheck.org [3]. Social platforms partner with independent, certified fact‑checkers who identify and rate content; those fact‑checkers can and do select items flagged by users for review [4]. Government content teams also use subject-matter experts to “fact check” draft guidance internally when asked [5]. In short, you can ask — but which organization you contact matters [3] [4] [5].
2. Selection is not automatic: fact‑checkers triage and prioritize
Fact‑checking organizations don’t treat every submitted question the same. They prioritize claims that are widely circulated, politically or publicly significant, or verifiable with available evidence [2] [6]. FactCheck.org describes systematically searching transcripts and viral items and focusing on misinformation that is being widely spread [2]. Academic and newsroom guides stress triage: check existing work first and prioritize claims that matter most to audiences [7] [8].
3. Method matters: what a “fact‑check” actually does
A rigorous fact‑check breaks a statement into discrete claims, seeks primary sources (government reports, data, original documents), interviews impartial experts, and attempts to contact the person or organization responsible for the claim for comment or backing data [9] [6]. The process can include authenticating images and videos, calling sources, and consulting public data — methods used both by independent fact‑checkers and those contracted by platforms [4] [9]. Internal fact‑checking inside governments or newsrooms follows similar verification steps but is aimed at preventing errors before publication [5] [1].
4. Limits and practical hurdles: not every question gets a full investigation
Fact‑checkers often stop when a claim is clearly true or false or when it lacks public relevance; they may decline deep investigation of obscure or narrowly technical matters that require specialized access [6] [2]. When writers don’t provide sourcing, fact‑checkers must do original reporting, which takes more time and resources [10]. Platforms use algorithmic signals and user flags to find likely misinformation, but that system isn’t exhaustive and depends on available data and certified partners [4].
5. Variations by context: internal, external, and platform fact‑checking
“Internal fact‑checking” occurs inside publishers or governments to prevent publication errors; “external fact‑checking” is third‑party verification of public claims after dissemination [1] [5]. Platforms like Meta append fact‑check articles to posts and rely on independent fact‑checkers certified through networks such as the IFCN; those fact‑checkers operate independently but in partnership with the platform’s detection systems [4]. Methodologies and editorial policies differ between outlets — PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and The Washington Post Fact Checker each have distinct selection rules [6].
6. How to increase the chance your request is acted on
Provide a clear, citable claim, where you saw it, dates or direct quotes, links or screenshots, and any primary documents you have — FactCheck.org specifically requests this information for their Ask channel [3]. Use established fact‑checking sites first to see if someone has already investigated the claim [7]. For newsroom or government content, route requests to the designated contact or subject‑matter expert so the fact‑checking workflow can be triggered [5].
7. Competing perspectives and concerns about fact‑checking
Fact‑checking proponents argue the discipline reduces deception and improves public understanding by emphasizing verifiable facts [2] [9]. Critics say political fact‑checking can be perceived as opinion journalism and that corrections may decay or be overshadowed by influential figures pushing less accurate narratives [1]. Platform-linked fact‑checking faces scrutiny over dependency on partnerships, data access, and perceived biases; independent certification schemes (IFCN, EFCSN) aim to mitigate those concerns but do not eliminate debates about scope and neutrality [4] [1].
8. Bottom line: you can ask, but expect a selection process
Anyone can request a fact‑check, and many reputable organizations provide submission channels and public guidance on methods [3] [2]. However, fact‑checkers filter requests by public importance, evidence availability, and resource constraints, and approaches differ across outlets and platforms [6] [4]. If you want a specific claim checked, follow the submission guidance of the most relevant fact‑checking organization and include primary sources to speed evaluation [3] [9].