Editorial Code &
Publication Standards.
OMN FactCheck is the independent investigative and fact-checking division of Open Media Network (OMN). We align our practices with the IFCN Code of Principles and the EFCSN Code of Standards.
Follow the evidence,
wherever it leads.
Our mission goes beyond verifying claims. We work to uncover corruption, disinformation, and systemic misconduct — and we give space to perspectives that are often overlooked or that run against dominant narratives. True investigative journalism means questioning every side, including the voices that mainstream discourse tends to ignore.
That mission rests on one non-negotiable foundation: evidence. We follow facts wherever they lead, and we hold every claim — popular or unpopular, official or dissenting — to the same evidentiary standard. Giving a perspective space is never the same as endorsing it, and openness to heterodox views never overrides the duty to report what the evidence actually shows.
Editorial Code.
1.Independence
OMN FactCheck operates with full editorial independence. No owner, advertiser, commercial partner, funder, political party, government body, or affiliated OMN business has any influence over which claims we examine, how we examine them, or what we conclude.
- Editorial decisions rest solely with the editorial team.
- No external party reviews or approves a fact-check before publication.
- Commercial and editorial functions are kept structurally separate. Sales and partnership staff have no role in editorial judgment.
- Where a story touches a person, company, or interest connected to OMN or any of our partners, that connection is disclosed openly within the published piece.
2.Non-Partisanship & Fairness
We do not take sides in political, ideological, or commercial disputes, and we do not campaign for any cause.
- We apply the same process and the same standards to all claims, regardless of who made them or which side benefits.
- Our staff do not engage in political advocacy, party membership in a campaigning capacity, or public partisan activity that could compromise the perceived neutrality of our work. Holding personal views is human; using our platform to advance them is not permitted.
- We select claims to check based on their public significance and verifiability — never to favor or damage a particular party, group, or interest.
- Over time, our body of work should not systematically favor any one side of the political or commercial spectrum.
3.Commitment to Accuracy & Evidence
Accuracy is the standard against which all our work is measured.
- Every conclusion is grounded in verifiable evidence — primary sources wherever possible.
- We distinguish clearly between what is established fact, what is contested, and what remains unknown.
- We do not publish a verdict we cannot support with documentation, data, expert assessment, or direct reporting.
- When the evidence is incomplete or mixed, we say so plainly rather than forcing a clean conclusion.
- "Questioning the dominant narrative" is a method, not a verdict. A claim that challenges consensus is examined exactly as rigorously as the consensus it challenges, and is reported as true, false, or unproven strictly on the evidence.
4.Transparency of Sources
Readers must be able to follow our reasoning and check our work themselves.
- We name our sources whenever possible and link directly to primary evidence — documents, datasets, recordings, official records, and original statements.
- Where we rely on a source that cannot be named (for reasons of safety, legal exposure, or confidentiality), we explain why anonymity was granted and what we did to verify the information independently.
- We do not rely on a single anonymous source for a significant factual claim.
- We preserve copies and archived links of source material so that evidence remains available even if the original is altered or removed.
5.Transparency of Methodology
We publish, in plain language, how we do our work — see Part Two. Every fact-check explains how the claim was selected, what evidence was gathered, who was consulted, and how the verdict was reached. Our methodology is public and applies uniformly.
6.Transparency of Funding & Organization
- We publish who owns and funds OMN FactCheck, including our relationship to OMN Group.
- We disclose any grant, sponsorship, or revenue source that could reasonably be seen to bear on our work.
- No funder receives the right to influence editorial content. Funding agreements that would compromise independence are refused.
- We publish the names and roles of our editorial leadership and the editorial team responsible for our output.
7.Conflicts of Interest
- Staff must declare any personal, financial, political, or family interest that could affect — or appear to affect — their objectivity on a given story.
- A staff member with a conflict is removed from that story.
- We do not accept gifts, payments, trips, or favors from any party that is, or could become, the subject of our reporting.
8.Open & Honest Corrections
We will make mistakes; what defines us is how we handle them.
- When we get something wrong, we correct it promptly, clearly, and visibly — never silently.
- Corrected articles carry a dated note explaining what was changed and why.
- Readers can flag suspected errors easily, and we commit to reviewing every substantive correction request.
- A correction is a sign of integrity, not weakness. We treat our own errors with the same scrutiny we apply to others.
9.Fairness & Right of Reply
- Before publishing material critical of a person or organization, we make a genuine effort to put the substance of our findings to them and to give them a fair opportunity to respond.
- We represent their response accurately, and we note when a party declined to comment or did not reply.
- We report on people fairly, avoid gratuitous harm, and weigh the public interest against potential damage — particularly for private individuals.
10.Intellectual Independence
Our commitment to questioning every side is a discipline, not a slogan.
- We do not assume an institution is right because it is powerful, nor that a dissenting voice is right because it is marginal. Authority and outsider status are equally subject to scrutiny.
- We actively seek out evidence and perspectives that the prevailing coverage has missed, including credible voices outside the mainstream.
- We never platform a claim simply because it is provocative or contrarian. Heterodox perspectives earn space through their evidentiary merit and public relevance — the same test every other claim must pass.
- We guard equally against two failures: uncritically repeating consensus, and uncritically amplifying contrarianism. Both are abdications of our duty to the evidence.
11.Use of Artificial Intelligence
OMN operates an AI-assisted production pipeline. In our fact-checking work:
- AI tools may assist with research, translation, transcription, data processing, and drafting — but the verification of facts and the final verdict are always the responsibility of a human editor.
- No fact-check is published on the basis of AI output alone. A human reviews and stands behind every claim and conclusion.
- We disclose where AI has played a material role in producing a piece.
- We do not publish AI-generated images, audio, or video as if they were authentic record, and we label any synthetic media used for illustration.
12.Safety, Legal & Ethical Conduct
- We comply with applicable law and respect legitimate rights to privacy, while defending the public's right to know.
- We protect the safety of sources, especially whistleblowers, and never expose a confidential source.
- We do not fabricate, plagiarize, or misrepresent. Material from other outlets is credited.
Content & Publication Guidelines.
These guidelines govern how an OMN FactCheck article is produced, structured, and published. They make our methodology concrete and repeatable.
1.Selecting What We Check
We prioritize claims that are:
- Public — made by a person or organization in a position of influence, or spreading widely among the public.
- Verifiable — based on facts that can be checked against evidence, not pure opinion, prediction, or matters of taste.
- Significant — consequential to public understanding, policy, safety, finances, or democratic debate.
We deliberately include claims from across the spectrum — official sources, institutions, and dominant narratives, as well as under-examined claims and voices outside the mainstream. Selection is driven by public interest and checkability, never by who benefits from the outcome.
We do not fact-check:
- Statements of opinion, belief, or faith that make no factual assertion.
- Satire or clearly labeled humor.
- Private individuals with no public role, except where they have become central to a matter of genuine public interest.
2.The Verification Process
Every fact-check follows the same core steps:
- Isolate the claim. State precisely what is being asserted, by whom, when, and in what context. We never strip a statement of context to make it easier to attack.
- Trace it to the source. Find the original statement — full quote, full context — not a secondhand summary.
- Gather primary evidence. Official records, datasets, peer-reviewed research, court documents, financial filings, on-the-record testimony, direct observation.
- Consult independent expertise. Where specialist knowledge is required, we seek qualified, independent experts and disclose who they are and any relevant interests.
- Seek the other side. We approach the subject of the claim and any affected party for response before publication.
- Weigh the evidence. We assess the totality of the evidence, note what is uncertain, and reach a verdict only the evidence supports.
- Internal review. No fact-check is published without review by a second editor who checks sourcing, reasoning, fairness, and verdict.
3.Our Rating System
Where we assign a verdict, we use a clear, consistent scale, and we define each rating publicly:
- True — The claim is accurate and supported by the evidence.
- Mostly True — The claim is accurate but needs clarification or context.
- Mixed / Half True — The claim contains both accurate and inaccurate or misleading elements.
- Mostly False — The claim contains an element of truth but is misleading or ignores critical facts.
- False — The claim is not supported by the evidence and is inaccurate.
- Unproven — There is insufficient evidence to establish the claim as either true or false. We say so rather than guess.
- Misleading — The individual facts may be accurate, but they are framed or combined to create a false impression.
Not every investigation results in a single rating. Long-form investigative pieces may present findings in narrative form, but the same evidentiary standards apply.
4.How a Fact-Check Is Written
Every published fact-check includes, at minimum:
- The claim, stated exactly and fairly, with attribution and date.
- The verdict (where applicable), prominently displayed.
- A clear summary of the key findings near the top.
- The evidence and reasoning, laid out so a reader can follow how we reached our conclusion.
- Links to primary sources, archived where appropriate.
- The response of the subject or affected party, or a note that comment was sought.
- A byline identifying the author(s), and the date of publication.
- A note on any AI assistance material to the piece.
We write in clear, accessible language. We separate fact from analysis. We avoid loaded or emotive framing — the evidence should carry the weight, not the adjectives.
5.Sourcing Standards
- Prefer primary sources over secondary; prefer named sources over anonymous.
- Link directly to evidence so readers can verify independently.
- Archive source material to protect against later alteration or deletion.
- Corroborate significant claims with more than one independent source.
- Date and attribute all data, and note its origin and any limitations.
6.Fact vs. Opinion
OMN FactCheck content is evidence-based reporting. Where any analysis, interpretation, or contextual judgment appears, it is clearly distinguished from verified fact. We do not present opinion as finding, and we do not let a desired conclusion shape the reading of the evidence.
7.Visuals & Synthetic Media
- Images, charts, and video must accurately represent what they depict.
- We label illustrations, reconstructions, and any AI-generated or AI-altered media.
- Data visualizations must not distort scale, proportion, or context.
- We do not use manipulated media in a way that could mislead, even for emphasis.
8.Pre-Publication Checklist
Before any piece goes live, the responsible editor confirms:
- The claim is stated accurately and in context.
- Every factual assertion is sourced and the sourcing is linked or documented.
- Primary sources have been verified and archived.
- The subject/affected party was given a fair chance to respond.
- Any conflict of interest or relevant affiliation is disclosed.
- The verdict matches the weight of the evidence.
- A second editor has reviewed the piece.
- AI involvement, if material, is disclosed.
9.Updates & Corrections
- Updates (new developments, added context) are dated and noted.
- Corrections (factual errors) are dated, explained, and applied to the live article; the nature of the error is stated openly.
- We never delete a published fact-check to hide a mistake. If a piece must be withdrawn, we explain why and leave a record.
- Significant corrections are surfaced, not buried.
10.Reader Engagement & Complaints
- Readers can suggest claims to check and can challenge our findings through a clearly published channel.
- We review every substantive complaint about accuracy or fairness and respond in good faith.
- Persistent or serious disputes are escalated to senior editorial leadership for independent review.