Statement of Principles
TGP Fact Check believes in the fair and non-partisan review of facts, claims, and stories. We believe in using primary sources when available, and secondary sources only when nothing else can provide necessary context.
We believe in these five principles in a non-compromising fashion:
- Non-partisanship and fairness
- Standards and transparency about sources
- Transparency of funding and organization
- Standards and transparency of methodology
- An open and honest corrections policy
We also believe that so-called ‘fact check’ entities can suffer from the same arrogance, confirmation bias, and prejudice that unfortunately clouds the judgment of many mainstream media outlets. We have seen several ‘fact check’ organizations who are in need of their own fact-checks.
We believe that fact checking should be done with an emphasis on keeping the most popular outlets the most accountable. The media entities with the highest circulation and most views should have the greatest scrutiny. There should be proportionality and significance considered when an organization engages a fact-check.
We believe that people have the right to incorrect opinions, but they should not be allowed to broadcast false claims without correction. Facts are not ideological and should not be considered so. Facts that unnerve, disturb, trigger, our audiences are most often the kind of facts that they desperately need to hear. Facts should not be concerned about whether they are politically correct at the moment.
We believe certain legacy publications are the biggest purveyors of popular myths, but are so dominant and popular that they act like, and are treated like, they are above fact-checking. We intend to fact check them rigorously.
We believe that not only are daily stories often wrong, but the source-material is also often wrong and prone to error. These are facts that are often taken for granted by establishment media, and go unchecked and unquestioned when they are repeated often enough. We believe that all claims, no matter how cherished by media elites, should be subjected to a fair and vigorous challenge. This also includes facts and stories from years prior.
We believe every substantive correction should be noted at the bottom of an article. We believe every good faith substantive disagreement should be reflected within an article or appended at the end of an article. We believe in the power of the public to append such inconvenient facts via the forum of commenting on articles.
We also believe that the development and evolution of ‘fact check’ organizations presents its own unique challenges. Many of these individuals pretend to easily challenge and ‘debunk’ claims by alternative media, and do a very poor job in the process. They are often incorrect and error prone, but subject to no accountability. No one is watching the media watchers. We want to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and we intend to hold competing fact-check organizations to a higher standard. We will fact-check other fact-check organizations with a great deal of skepticism and scrutiny.