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.
Help us keep fact-checking free for everyone. Independent, ad-free, and powered by readers
Executive summary
Independent, ad-free fact‑checking organizations rely heavily on reader support and donations to remain open and free; Full Fact and FactCheck.org explicitly ask readers to donate because “fact checks are free to read but not to produce” and to fund their independent work [1] [2]. The International Fact‑Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter coordinates many signatory fact‑checkers worldwide and lists fundraising/donation options on its site as part of sustaining the field [3].
1. Why many fact‑checkers ask for reader support — the economic reality
Fact‑checking is labour‑intensive: research, sourcing, verification and editing require staff time and technical tools. Full Fact states that its fact checks “are free to read but not to produce,” and it explicitly asks readers to donate to continue independent, impartial work [1]. FactCheck.org similarly runs fundraising drives and asks readers to consider donating, indicating donations are a core revenue stream that keeps content ad‑free and independent [2]. These appeals show that reader funding is an established model in the field [1] [2].
2. Reader funding as a protection for editorial independence
Multiple organizations present reader support as a route to independence. Full Fact frames donations as a way to hold “those in power to make our politics more honest and truthful,” linking public funding with editorial autonomy [1]. FactCheck.org’s fundraising messaging further reinforces that nonprofit, reader‑supported models aim to reduce commercial pressures that can come from advertising or partisan owners [2].
3. Global coordination and reputational standards
The International Fact‑Checking Network (IFCN) at Poynter serves as a hub for more than 170 fact‑checking organizations, offering codes of principles, networking and capacity building — a role that helps standardize practices that donors can evaluate when deciding whom to support [3]. IFCN signatory status is commonly used by libraries and guides to recommend trusted fact‑checkers to readers and educators [3] [4].
4. Not all “fact‑checking” labels are equal — watch for partisan or state‑linked actors
Sources warn that organizations branding themselves as fact‑checking networks can have political agendas. Wikipedia’s compiled list flags a newly launched Global Fact‑Checking Network (GFCN) that “claims to coordinate efforts” but “in reality promotes Russian propaganda and disinformation,” illustrating the risk that some groups use the language of verification while advancing state or partisan narratives [5]. Readers and donors should confirm an organization’s independence, governance and track record before contributing [5].
5. Practical guidance for would‑be supporters
Use third‑party signals cited by trusted institutions: IFCN affiliation, independent newsroom endorsements, and library guides that list and vet fact‑checkers [3] [4]. Organizations such as Full Fact and FactCheck.org make their funding needs explicit on their sites, which is a transparent practice donors can judge [1] [2]. University and library resource lists (e.g., UC Berkeley, Penn State) routinely point readers to established fact‑checkers as reliable starting points [4] [6].
6. Competing viewpoints within the sector and hidden agendas to watch
While many fact‑checkers present reader funding as a path to impartiality, critics point out that funding models differ: some outlets combine donations with ads or memberships [7]. Moreover, the existence of actor‑labelled “fact‑checking” networks that serve state narratives (the GFCN example) shows a hidden agenda risk — organizations can mimic the field’s language to gain legitimacy [5]. Evaluating governance, transparency about funders, and external accreditation (IFCN) helps reveal these differences [5] [3].
7. Why “keeping fact‑checking free” is both a public good and a sustainability challenge
Fact‑checking as free public resources strengthens democratic accountability and helps the public navigate misinformation; Full Fact explicitly links its work to preventing harm from bad information and calls for support to sustain that role [1]. But the same sources make clear the persistent funding gap — readers must decide whether to underwrite independent verification or rely on models that may introduce commercial or political pressures [1] [2].
Limitations and transparency: this analysis relies only on the provided sources and does not include direct financial audits or interview data from the organizations named; available sources do not mention current donor lists or exact budget shortfalls for each outlet beyond general fundraising appeals [1] [2] [3].