After we fact check

Intervening early in the information cycle

We intervene as early as possible to minimise the harm that bad information can cause, and build a better information environment to restore trust.

We prioritise intervening on false, misleading and unevidenced claims that: (i) are of public interest, (ii) have the potential to cause harm to people’s lives, and (iii) are at risk of being repeated. We also consider whether intervening will ultimately help to improve the information environment, for example by guiding a prominent person or institution to share better information in future. We most regularly intervene on claims made by politicians, journalists and public institutions. 

We ask claimants to make sure that such claims are accurate, backed up by the most reliable publicly-available evidence, and not misleading. If they cannot ensure this, we ask them to take whatever action they can as quickly as possible so that: (i) the claim is no longer accessible, for example by correcting it, and (ii) people who saw/heard the original claim are informed with due prominence. We may also ask them to reflect on the incident and take action to improve the information environment.

If a claimant doesn’t respond proactively to our request, we will act ourselves to combat bad information quickly. In addition to following as much of our why and how to correct guidance on a claimant’s behalf, we may also alert a regulator or campaign in the most effective way we think we can, potentially with the help of our supporters and other organisations.

Evidence tells us that interventions can be most effective in rebuilding trust if the person who made the claim remedies it themselves. This helps to bring about higher standards of accuracy and honesty, and also gather evidence about how well the systems meant to stop bad information reaching the public are working.

We also take action to improve the production of information in the first place. In addition to provision of training, for example, we have written public letters to the new Prime Minister, Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition, as part of our policy work, in recognition of the role they can play in improving the information environment.

Case studies

Home Office publishes data used by Prime Minister at party conference

In his first party conference speech as Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer said there had been “a 23% increase in returns of people who have no right to be here, compared with last summer.” The figure was based on unpublished immigration statistics, so we asked the Home Office to release the data. We also alerted the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR), and asked the regulator to intervene when the Home Office did not respond to our request. The Home Office published the data, and the OSR discussed the issue with the department as well as officials in 10 Downing St.

Full Fact v Daily Express

When the Daily Express published a misleading claim about immigration by Richard Holden, we asked the paper and the then Conservative Party Chair to correct it. The claim - that 100,000 more migrants would enter the UK every year under Labour - even included a mathematical error, but neither the Daily Express or Richard Holden agreed to correct it. We submitted a complaint to IPSO (the Independent Press Standards Organisation, a ‘self-regulator paid for by publishers’) which ruled in our favour. Mr Holden’s article was corrected with due prominence and stopped being repeated.

Liberal Democrat spokesperson uses improved correction system that Full Fact called for

After Full Fact’s AI tools detected Helen Morgan MP confusing NHS waiting list figures, we asked the Health and Social Care spokesperson to correct her claim. She did this using an improved corrections system that thousands of Full Fact supporters called for, which gave all MPs gained equal power to correct the record.  Several politicians and journalists have confused waiting list figures, and not all have corrected after we contacted them, so we are working with key institutions - such as the Department of Health and Social Care - to improve accuracy.