Is factually a credible new source?
Executive summary
There is no evidence in the supplied reporting that identifies or evaluates a news outlet called "Factually," so a definitive judgment about its credibility cannot be made from these materials; the library and academic guides provided instead outline widely accepted criteria and trusted fact‑checking organizations that should be used to assess any outlet [1] [2] [3]. The responsible conclusion, given the supplied sources, is that credibility must be established through the outlet’s transparency, methodology, third‑party audits or ratings (e.g., IFCN membership, NewsGuard, Media Bias/Fact Check), and cross‑verification with recognized fact‑checkers rather than by assertion [4] [5] [6].
1. What the question actually asks and the limits of the record
The user is asking for a binary credibility judgment about an entity called "Factually," but none of the provided sources mentions or profiles an outlet by that exact name, so the supplied evidence cannot confirm or deny its trustworthiness and doing so would exceed the reporting [5] [4]. Library and university guides repeatedly caution readers to check for documentation, citations, and corroboration and to be wary when a named outlet does not appear in established lists or fact‑checking indexes [7] [8].
2. What authoritative guides say about what makes a news/fact‑checking outlet credible
University and public library guides identify consistent signals of credibility: transparent sourcing and citations, clear methodological statements, institutional independence or nonprofit status, editorial oversight, and inclusion in recognized networks such as the International Fact‑Checking Network (IFCN) or positive third‑party ratings like NewsGuard [3] [4] [9]. Reputable fact‑checking organizations named in the guides—Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, Reuters Fact Check—are repeatedly cited as exemplars because they publish methods and primary sources and are monitored by academic and library curators [2] [10] [4].
3. Common red flags the supplied sources emphasize
The materials warn to distrust outlets that lack source citations, publish anonymous or unverified claims, are absent from curated lists of fact‑checkers, or present partisan advocacy without methodological transparency; they also advise cross‑checking stories with multiple reputable outlets and using reverse image and source tracing for suspicious media [7] [8] [11]. Media Bias/Fact Check and library guides urge caution toward sites with unclear ownership or that appear on lists of known misleading domains [1] [12].
4. How to evaluate "Factually" (the practical checklist implied by the sources)
If a reader wants to judge "Factually," the supplied guidance recommends checking whether the outlet: 1) cites primary sources and links documents; 2) discloses ownership and funding; 3) publishes an explicit editorial and corrections policy; 4) is a signatory to IFCN or rated by NewsGuard or MBFC; and 5) shows a track record of alignment or disagreement with established fact‑checkers (Snopes, PolitiFact, Reuters), because academic work finds high agreement among leading fact‑checkers when methodology is transparent fact-checkers-a-data-driven-approach/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[13] [1] [4] [10].
5. Bottom line — what can be said, and what cannot
Based solely on the supplied sources, it is not possible to state that "Factually" is a credible news source because the sources provided do not mention it or evaluate it; however, the supplied library and academic materials furnish a reproducible set of criteria and trusted comparators to test its credibility—apply those checks and look for IFCN membership, NewsGuard scores, transparent sourcing, and corroboration from Snopes/PolitiFact/Reuters to reach a defensible conclusion [5] [4] [2] [10]. If "Factually" appears in subsequent searches and meets most of these standards, it could be considered credible; if it fails on multiple points, treat its reporting with skepticism until independent verification is available [3] [6].