Search several established services. Their coverage, methods and verdict labels differ, so read the evidence—not only the headline or rating.
Search directory
Seven useful starting points
These links go directly to the services. Test the Claim does not copy their verdicts into a separate database or rank one organisation as a final authority.
Search tool
Google Fact Check Explorer
Searches fact checks published by outside organisations using structured ClaimReview data. Google provides the index; it does not write the checks shown.
Behind it
Google
Work model
Automated index of independent publishers
Useful for
Searching one phrase across many fact-checking sites
A dedicated department of Agence France-Presse with journalists and regional editors. AFP publishes its governance, funding sources, method and corrections standards.
Behind it
Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Work model
Paid journalists and editors
Useful for
Viral claims, manipulated media and multilingual coverage
A fact-checking unit inside the Reuters editorial department, owned by Thomson Reuters. It focuses especially on visual material and claims circulating on social media.
A specialist team within BBC News that uses open-source intelligence, data analysis, satellite imagery and forensic verification to show how reporting was established.
Behind it
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
Work model
Paid BBC journalists and specialists
Useful for
Breaking news, conflict footage, data and visual verification
A UK registered charity with employed fact checkers, journalists, technologists and policy staff. A volunteer board of trustees oversees the organisation but not daily editorial decisions.
Behind it
Full Fact, charity no. 1158683
Work model
Paid staff; volunteer trustees and contributors
Useful for
UK politics, public policy, statistics and health claims
Fact-checking and explanatory reporting from The Associated Press, an independent global news cooperative owned by its US newspaper and broadcaster members.
Behind it
The Associated Press (AP)
Work model
Paid journalists and editors
Useful for
US politics, elections and major breaking-news claims
A long-running US fact-checking publisher owned by Chris Richmond and Drew Schoentrup. Its reporting is produced by editorial staff and is increasingly supported by paying members.
Behind it
Snopes Media Group
Work model
Paid editorial staff; reader memberships and advertising
Useful for
Internet rumours, memes, folklore and viral US claims
Directory details last checked 4 August 2026. A listing describes the service; it is not an endorsement of every article it publishes.
Do not outsource the conclusion
Check the source yourself!
A fact-checking article is a useful lead, not a substitute for reading. Use its links to reconstruct the strongest part of the case.
01
Find the original
Locate the full speech, study, dataset, judgment, image or video—not only a screenshot or paraphrase.
02
Confirm the claimed content
Does the original actually say or show what the post attributes to it?
03
Check date and scope
Old material, another country or a narrow sample may be presented as current and universal.
04
Ask what was tested
Check the population, comparison, measurement, assumptions and uncertainty.
05
Look for missing context
A true number or quotation can still create a false impression when the denominator, baseline or surrounding sentence is removed.
06
Seek independent evidence
Several articles repeating one source are not several independent confirmations.
07
Read beyond the abstract
For research claims, inspect methods, limitations and results before relying on the title or summary.
08
Match conclusion to evidence
Distinguish false, unsupported, uncertain, mixed and out of context. Do not claim more certainty than the evidence permits.
Who did the work?
Volunteer does not mean unreliable. Professional does not mean infallible.
Some projects use volunteers, some use paid journalists, and some combine paid staff with volunteer boards or contributors. Employment status alone does not settle credibility.
Who publishes and who reviews the work?
Are funding and conflicts disclosed?
Are corrections visible?
Can you reproduce the reasoning from linked sources?