Have media organizations published vetted visitor lists and how reliable are their sources?

1. What MBFC means by “vetted” and how they apply it

MBFC says it “selects and publishes fact checks from around the world” and restricts those selections to fact‑checkers that are IFCN signatories or have been “verified as credible by MBFC,” and further that MBFC “review[s] each fact check for accuracy before publishing” ^{[1] [2]}. That is an explicit editorial gate: MBFC’s vetting combines a reliance on external verification frameworks (IFCN membership or MBFC verification) plus an internal review step ^[2]. Those are the concrete reliability claims in the available reporting ^{[1] [2]}.

2. What the coverage does not show: “vetted visitor lists”

The search results repeatedly use the phrase “Daily Vetted Fact Checks” and reference fact‑check curation and review ^{[4] [5] [6]}. None of the supplied items mention media organizations publishing “vetted visitor lists” (a list of visitors to an event or site) or explain standards for vetting such lists. Therefore, available sources do not mention media outlets publishing “vetted visitor lists” or the reliability of those hypothetical lists ^{[6] [1]}.

3. How to read MBFC’s reliability claims in context

MBFC’s reliability statement rests on two pillars: external accreditation (IFCN or MBFC verification) and an internal accuracy review ^[2]. External accreditation provides a baseline: IFCN signatories follow a known code of principles; MBFC’s statement implies it treats those signatories as acceptable sources. The internal review is less transparent in the excerpts: the results say MBFC “review[s] each fact check for accuracy” but do not describe methodology, criteria, or whether this review corrects, annotates, or simply republishes the third‑party fact checks ^{[1] [2]}. Those procedural gaps limit the ability to independently judge MBFC’s vetting rigor from the available reporting ^[2].

4. Broader guidance from academic reporting on evaluating claims

A university information‑literacy guide cited in the results emphasizes checking who the sources are, how evidence was vetted, whether the interpretation is proven by evidence, and what’s missing—practical steps for readers assessing any curated list or claim ^[3]. That guidance underlines a key point missing from MBFC’s short statements: readers should seek primary sources, assess evidence directly, and note what the curator did and did not verify ^[3].

5. Competing perspectives and hidden agendas to watch for

MBFC frames its role as a neutral curator of fact checks by relying on IFCN signatories and an internal review ^[2]. A competing perspective—implicit in the need for reader guidance—would caution that curation can introduce selection bias: which fact checks are chosen, which are omitted, and how MBFC’s own judgment shapes the narrative. The supplied results include MBFC disclaimers that readers can contest fact checks and that MBFC provides links to third‑party fact checks, suggesting an awareness of contested judgments but not resolving potential curator bias ^{[4] [2]}.

6. Practical takeaway for a reader wanting reliable lists

If you seek reliable, “vetted” lists or claims: 1) confirm the curator’s standards (MBFC cites IFCN membership or internal verification) and demand transparency about review procedures ^[2]; 2) follow the primary evidence yourself where possible rather than relying solely on curated summaries ^[3]; and 3) note disclaimers and mechanisms for correction or dispute—MBFC explicitly invites challenges to fact checks it links to ^[4]. Those steps reflect the combination of MBFC’s stated practice and the information‑literacy recommendations in the available sources ^{[4] [3]}.