Plus 10 tips for fact-checkers Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]
How the Shakti Collective did its work … Getting a newsroom ready to fact-check elections … Defending fact-checkers in the face of harassment … A new contest for the IFCN grants course, with a chance to win … GlobalFact planning calendar for 2025
Q&A: How India’s Shakti project fact-checked the largest election at scale
Fact-checking leaders from India at GlobalFact 11 in Sarajevo in June. (Courtesy: Project Shakti)

Media executives in India put their rivalries aside to collaborate on Shakti ([link removed]) , a joint project connecting fact-checkers and news publishers to combat election misinformation. The project, backed ([link removed]) with funding from Google News Initiative, involved the translation and distribution of fact-check reports among roughly 50 newsrooms.

The project is notable because India’s general elections are massive. They are conducted in seven phases across the geography of one of the largest countries in the world (No. 7 in terms of total area), with 642 million people voting over a six-week period.

Enock Nyariki of the International Fact-Checking Network recently interviewed Syed Nazakat, founder and CEO of DataLEADS who coordinated the initiative, about how the initiative worked.

Here are excerpts of what Nazakat had to say, drawn from a longer Q&A ([link removed]) you can read on the IFCN website.

On how the project worked:
“The fact-checking community involved in the Shakti alliance included IFCN signatories with clear editorial guidelines. During the election, 67 news organizations created pop-up fact-checking units across the country. They dedicated teams to fact-checking, translating, republishing, and helping people make better decisions about the information they consume. This effort significantly changed the larger information ecosystem in the country. …

“We told fact-checkers to focus on a few key areas, upload stories daily to the repository, and we would provide alerts to keep them ahead. Publishers needed only to assign a couple of team members to access the repository, translate, and publish the content. They didn’t need to conduct their own investigations or fact-checks. This made the workflow manageable.”

On handling a project of such large scale and scope:

“First, it’s crucial to have a clear structure for any collaboration. Everyone involved should understand their role from the very start. We documented roles with a two-page MOU for all partners, clearly outlining expectations. Structure and curation are fundamentally important. …

“Transparency builds trust. Be open and transparent, and if things go wrong, have a Plan B ready to mitigate challenges.

“The fundamental lesson from Shakti is that if you want to do big things, make the process simple for everyone involved. Complexity will hinder progress. That’s my best learning from this process.”

On what was most surprising about the project:

“Initially, there was skepticism about whether the collaboration would work. I remember a top editor expressing doubt about why publishers would join the effort. We showed publishers the incentives, such as not needing their own fact-checkers and the ability to scale and amplify good information. This collaboration generated significant social media engagement for publishers, which was a new experience for them. In the end, the collaboration worked smoothly without any legal issues or disputes. We all stayed together through a complex election, which was a pleasant surprise for everyone involved.”

Read the full conversation here ([link removed]) .


10 tips for fact-checkers getting ready for a big election
People vote in a temporary polling station next to Norbiton railway station London on July 4, 2024. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)

Saja Mortada of the Arab Fact-Checking Network recently visited Full Fact offices in London as Full Fact prepared to fact-check the United Kingdom’s July 4 elections. She offered 10 tips and takeaways for other fact-checking newsrooms preparing for elections.

Briefly, here’s Saja’s top 10 list. Read her explanations and instructions via the full story ([link removed]) .


1. Planning: Everything starts with a strategy

2. What should you fact-check in an election? Focus on impact

3. Gather trusted sources to fact-check an election

4. Analyze trends

5. Prioritize your audience

6. Should you use artificial intelligence? Why and how?

7. Consider accountability: Let officials correct and apologize

8. Safety: It is a priority, not a luxury

9. Collaboration: Working together increases impact

10. Establish clear guidelines based on lessons learned


Saja concluded: “It’s important not just to do our fact-checking, but to analyze it for ways to improve. In our rapidly changing world, the landscape of misinformation is evolving just as swiftly, necessitating adaptive strategies. Each election presents unique challenges, and by reflecting on these experiences, we can refine our approaches to better address misinformation. As we learn from one election cycle to the next, sharing insights and discussing strategies with the broader fact-checking community becomes invaluable.” Read the story ([link removed]) .
Fact-checking community news
The Christ the Redeemer statue and Sugar Loaf in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (AP File Photo)
GlobalFact 12 planning starts. See you in Rio!

GlobalFact 11 in Sarajevo was a resounding success; we reviewed the conference proceedings in last month’s installment ([link removed]) of Factually. Yet we were no sooner home when the International Fact-Checking Network staff and local partners started planning for 2025’s GlobalFact 12, to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Here’s a tentative planning calendar for when we expect to announce more details.
October to November 2024
Site visit to Brazil
GlobalFact 12 website launches
Call for topics and ideas from the community via survey
Call for proposals for GlobalFact locations in 2026 and 2027
December 2024
Venue and conference dates announced
Call for session proposals opens
January to February 2025
Call for sessions closes. Community surveyed. Session acceptance notifications sent.
Announcement of visa application details, invitation letters, and conference hotel information
March 2025
Travel support applications open and close
April 2025
Travel support notifications sent
May 2025
Program schedule publishes
Registration opens
June 2025
Registration closes
Late June 2025
GlobalFact 12 held in Rio de Janeiro!
Defending fact-checkers under attack

The International Fact-Checking Network has recently defended fact-checkers in Greece, Croatia and Georgia in the face of unfair attacks. While the nature of the attacks is different in each place, the principle remains that fact-checkers should be free to do their work without facing harassment or threats.

In Greece, Ellinika Hoaxes faced threats from a prominent politician who said he could abolish the organization via new legislative action. Ellinika Hoaxes noted ([link removed]) the threat directly contradicts Greece’s constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press. Read the IFCN’s full statement ([link removed]) .

In Croatia, a journalist with Faktograf was physically attacked while working on a documentary for Faktograf’s Climate Portal. The motive for the attacks appeared to be attempts to deter reporting on illegal dumping and its related environmental harm. Faktograf’s climate reporting ([link removed]) was a finalist in the impact category ([link removed]) at this year’s GlobalFact Awards. Read the IFCN statement defending Faktograf ([link removed]) .

In Georgia, fact-checkers had their offices vandalized repeatedly and received all kinds of violent threats, including those directed to their relatives, as the Georgia parliament approved a “Foreign Agent Law” aimed at restricting independent journalism. The IFCN released a statement ([link removed]) and co-signed a letter ([link removed]) with the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) in their defense.
Research watch
• "Liars know they are lying ([link removed]) : differentiating disinformation from disagreement," by Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, John Cook, Sander van der Linden, Jon Roozenbeek, Naomi Oreskes & Lee C. McIntyre
• An all-star panel of academics rebuts recent arguments that fact-checking and misinformations studies censor political viewpoints, or, alternatively, that misinformation is too amorphous to be precisely defined. The paper focuses on how harm is demonstrated; how disinformation differs from good faith political argument; and how misinformation can be mitigated without censorship.
• "Pulling Back the Curtain ([link removed]) : An Exploration of YouTube’s Recommendation Algorithm," a report from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue
• Researchers with the institute created generic user profiles and let them run for a month to see what kind of content YouTube's algorithms suggested. They found accounts set up to imitate teenagers were recommended harmful sexual content and content related to self-harm and suicide, while adult profiles were recommended health misinformation. A Yahoo report ([link removed]) summarized the findings.
• "How effective were Community Notes on X ([link removed]) during elections in India and the U.K.?" by Ilma Hassan of Logically Facts
• Logically Facts released a report ([link removed]) on the effectiveness of Community Notes on X during recent elections in India and the United Kingdom. The report found that delays and disagreements among contributors often prevented notes from appearing on crucial posts, allowing misinformation to spread.


**
Take IFCN’s free grants course; win $100
------------------------------------------------------------

Are you interested in grant writing? Is your news organization exploring new sources of funding? Do you want a little extra spending money?

Well, do we have an offer for you!

Enroll for free in Grant Writing for Journalists ([link removed]) from the Poynter Institute’s International Fact-Checking Network for a chance to win $100. All you have to do is complete the course in its entirety (it takes six to eight hours, and you’ll get a certificate of completion!). Then, you’ll be automatically entered in a drawing for $100. Be sure to complete the course before Aug. 31 to be eligible to win, when five lucky winners will be randomly selected on Sept. 3.

The self-paced, online course, developed by the staff of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) working with subject matter experts from the Center for Sustainable Media, guides participants through the components of applying for grants from various funding sources. Modularly structured, it includes sections on common grant application elements, including narratives, monitoring and evaluation and budgeting.
Have ideas or suggestions for the next issue of Factually? Email us at [email protected]
Angie Drobnic Holan
Director, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Enock Nyariki
Community and Impact Manager, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
Alanna Dvorak
International Training Manager, IFCN
[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2024
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .