The 8 Best Fact-Checking Sites for Finding Unbiased Truth

Authentic news,No fake news.

By-

 

Megan Ellis

Megan decided to unite her Honors Degree in New Media and lifetime of geekiness to pursue a career in tech and gaming journalism. You can usually find her writing about a variety of topics and drooling over new gadgets and games.

With deliberate misinformation campaigns and the continued prevalence of fake news, fact-checking sites are now more important than ever.

So in the digital era, where news travels quickly through multiple channels, how do you check your facts? Here are five of the best fact-checking websites, like Snopes and PolitiFact, so that you can find the truth.

1. Media Bias/FactCheck (MBFC News)

If you were wondering who is there to fact check the fact-checkers, that would be MBFC. From Palmer Report to Breitbart and even browser extensions like Newsguard, MBFC rates them all.

The website is a bias rating resource, with multiple fake news checking apps and extensions integrating these ratings into their own systems. The site’s reputation means that it has long been a resource that internet users can visit to check the bias in their favorite news websites.

5 Smart News Apps to Help You Avoid Fake News With More Trustworthy Reports 5 Smart News Apps to Help You Avoid Fake News With More Trustworthy ReportsWant to get away from fake news? You can use these smart apps to get fact-checked and neutral news instead.READ MORE

MBFC not only includes reports on the bias of famous fact-checking websites like Snopes and PolitiFact but also publishes a daily source bias check. Factors that they consider include sourcing, biased wording, story choices, and political affiliation.

The site analyzes bias, transparency regarding funding sources, press freedom in the country of origin, and the site’s history of factual reporting. Failed fact-checks and instances of biased language are flagged in each site’s summary.

Finally, MBFC also has extensive lists on news sources with different biases (right, extreme, left, etc.). This includes lists of websites known for conspiracies, pseudoscience, and questionable sources. This helps users know which reports to take with a pinch of salt.

We’ve also included the MBFC News bias rating on each of the fact-checking sites on this list, excluding any sites that have been flagged as including bias.

2. Snopes

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

Is Snopes biased? According to MBFC, as well as other fact-checking sites, the answer is no.

Snopes started out as a site that mainly dealt with urban legends, myths, common misconceptions, and rumors. However, it has expanded to encompass general fact-checking of viral misinformation, including political statements.

Snopes has been accused of receiving funding from liberal billionaire George Soros. However, Snope’s disclosure page provides a summary of the website’s yearly expenditure and income. Its income is split between its GoFundMe campaign, advertising, its Facebook fact-checking partnership, reader contributions, and shareholder financing.

The website further states:

“We do not accept political advertising, nor do we accept any other form of funding from political parties, political campaigns, or political advocacy groups. We accept contributions directly from our readers and from non-partisan organizations to further our mission. The source of any single contribution we receive exceeding $10,000 or comprising more than 5% of our total annual revenue will be disclosed to the public.”

Meanwhile, FactCheck.org has put its weight behind Snopes; saying it is a reliable source and frequently citing the website in their own fact-checking articles.

3. PolitiFact

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

PolitiFact is a non-partisan fact-checking website that focuses on political claims made in the US. This includes statements by politicians, political topics such as immigration, and general political news. A global edition of the site tackles stories from other parts of the world.

PolitiFact is a Pulitzer Prize-winning website and was acquired by the Poynter Institute in 2018—a reflection of the site’s commitment to truthful journalism.

The website has a few unique elements that make it stand out from other fact-checking websites. Firstly, there’s the Truth-o-Meter, which assesses the level of truth in a statement. This scale includes levels such as true, half true, mostly false, and even a “pants on fire” rating at the far end of the meter. The site even has an affiliated app called PolitiTruth that aims to test your political knowledge and susceptibility to fake news.

MBFC continues to rate PolitiFact as one of the most reliable, truthful fact-checking sites out there.

4. FactCheck.org

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

Not only is FactCheck.org a fact-checking website with an established history of journalistic rigor, but it also partners with Facebook to combat viral fake news.

FactCheck is a non-partisan fact-checking website which focuses primarily on US politics. It is also a non-profit project—meaning it focuses on information, not the pursuit of profit.

Not only does the site regularly debunk politician claims and viral fake news, but it also lets users submit their own questions to the website.

5. TruthOrFiction.com

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

TruthOrFiction.com is one of the longest-running fact-checking sites out there. While it initially focused on looking at internet hoaxes and rumors, it has extended its range to include general fake news as well. This includes political stories and viral content.

The website gives stories various ratings to reflect their reliability. These include ratings such as true, fiction, unknown, decontextualized, or variations thereof. The analyses of rumors or stories look at the origins of these stories, whether there are elements of truth, and where stories may have gone astray (such as decontextualizing truth).

6. Lead Stories

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

Lead Stories is a lesser-known website that helps users fact-check information. The website debunks fake news across a variety of beats, including entertainment, tech, politics, and international news.

The website also uses the Trendolizer search engine to monitor trending content—using these results to identify trending fake news. Depending on certain criteria, the site then debunks any trending hoaxes or false information using objective sources.

“Generally we will prioritize stories that are most trending or which are very new and which are gaining traction fastest. We might occasionally also tackle a story that has been debunked by another site already if we have more/better information. And if we receive a tip from a reader or spot an obvious hoax making the rounds on social media we might also decide to fact check and/or debunk it if it meets the above criteria,” Lead Stories explains in their methodology.

The site also partners with Facebook as part of the social network’s effort to combat fake news.

7. Hoax Slayer

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

Hoax Slayer is another reliable website that you can use to check out the latest online hoaxes. It focuses primarily on the type of hoaxes and misinformation shared on social media, such as Facebook scams, viral privacy policy hoaxes, phishing scams, and social network rumors.

The site mostly stays away from fact-checking politicians, considering there are a number of other sites that do this already. However, it does debunk certain fake news stories with a political agenda. One example includes debunking a WhatsApp message that claimed a billboard in Zimbabwe claimed white people can be killed in South Africa with no consequence, encouraging people to get in touch with South Africa’s ruling party to see how.

Hoax Slayer is also a much smaller website than others on this list, owned and run by Australian Brett M. Christensen. Despite this, the site has a stellar rating from MBFC for its factual reporting and neutrality.

8. FullFact.org

MBFC News Rating: Least Biased

If you are looking for a UK-based fact-checking website, Full Fact is considered a reliable source and is endorsed by MBFC. The website is a fact-checking charity, with a diverse range of funding and transparency around income. They even make sure their Board of Trustees come from different sides of the political spectrum.

Full Fact also goes further than fact checks and even provides a fact-checking toolkit. The site also pushes for corrections from publishers when they publish incorrect or misleading information.

Fact-Checking Sites With Bias?

There are a few popular fact-checking websites that do receive high ratings for factual reporting but do not qualify for this list due to receiving a biased score on MBFC.

A few of these sites include:

• Fact Checker by Washington Pos: Left-center bias
• CheckYourFact: Right-center bias
• FactMyth.com: Left-center bias
• Zebra Fact Check: Right-center bias
• ExposingTruth.com: Left-center bias

These biases emerge from the focal point of fact checks (such as fact-checking the right more than the left), or from the occasional use of loaded words to sway readers. While these websites do usually use credible sources, their focus indicates some level of bias.

How to Do Your Own Fact-Checking

While fact-checking websites will help you debunk myths and fake news, you should also aim to improve your own skills at spotting fake news. This will help you figure out the best ways to research topics, avoid confirmation bias, and learn which sites are not credible sources.

Have a look at our guide on how to avoid fake news for tips on spotting misinformation.

How to Quickly Avoid Fake News During an Unfolding Crisis How to Quickly Avoid Fake News During an Unfolding CrisisNext time there's a crisis, don't fall for any hype. Cut through the social scams and the lies to find the truth with these tips.READ MORE

Star orbiting massive black hole lends support to Einstein's theory

Authentic news,No fake news.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Observations of light coming from a star zipping in orbit around the humongous black hole at the center of our galaxy have provided fresh evidence backing Albert Einstein’s 1915 theory of general relativity, astronomers said on Thursday.

A star known as S0-2, the blue and green object in this artist's rendering, that made its closest approach to the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way in 2018 is shown in this U.S. National Science Foundation image released on July 25, 2019. Courtesy Nicolle R. Fuller/National Science Foundation/Handout via REUTERS

Researchers studied a star called S0-2, boasting a mass roughly 10 times larger than the sun, as it travels in an elliptical orbit lasting 16 years around the supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A* residing at the center of the Milky Way 26,000 light years from Earth.

They found that the behavior of the star’s light as it escaped the extreme gravitational pull exerted by the black hole, with 4 million times the sun’s mass, conformed to Einstein’s theory’s predictions. The famed theoretical physicist proposed the theory, considered one of the pillars of science, to explain the laws of gravity and their relation to other natural forces.

While Einstein’s theory held up in the observations of this star, astronomer Andrea Ghez of the University of California, Los Angeles said it may not be able to fully account for what happens in the most exotic possible gravitational environments like those of black holes. These extraordinarily dense celestial entities exert gravitational fields so strong that no matter or light can escape.

The study detected a co-mingling of space and time near the black hole as predicted by Einstein’s theory. Isaac Newton’s 17th century law of universal gravitation could not account for these observations, Ghez said.

“Newton had the best description of gravity for a long time but it started to fray around the edges. And Einstein provided a more complete theory. Today we are seeing Einstein’s theories starting to fray around the edges,” said Ghez, who led the study published in the journal Science.

At some point a more comprehensive theory of gravity may be required, she said.

The study, relying heavily on data from the Keck Observatory in Hawaii, focused on an effect called gravitational redshift.

Einstein’s theory foresees the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation including light lengthening as it escapes the pull of gravity exerted by a massive celestial body like a black hole.

Photons - particles of light - expend energy to escape but always travel at the speed of light, meaning the energy loss occurs through a change of electromagnetic frequency rather than a slowing of velocity. This causes a shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum, a gravitational redshift.

Privatization Increases Corruption

Authentic news,No fake news.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Jul 23 2019 (IPS) - International financial institutions (IFIs) have typically imposed wide-ranging policy reforms – called ‘conditionalities’ – in exchange for country governments to secure access to financial assistance.

While IFIs may demand anti-corruption policies, other IFI policy conditionalities, such as the privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), can create new rentier opportunities, undermining government will and capacity to curb corruption.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

IMF cure worse than disease?
Statistical analysis of International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities on 141 developing countries from 1982 to 2014 has found that requiring privatization of SOEs has undermined anti-corruption efforts.

The study finds that IMF conditions requiring SOE privatization undermine anti-corruption efforts, both in the short-term, i.e., up to five years, and especially in the longer-term. Other IMF interventions have not effectively deterred corruption, which has clearly risen following privatization, especially in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia.

Meanwhile, studies of IMF policy paradigms after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, suggest changes in rhetoric, rather than actual policies, as IFI leaderships have many reasons to maintain old practices.

IFI imposed reforms typically require governments to cut public expenditure, privatize state-owned assets, liberalize markets and deregulate prices, ostensibly to foster economic growth, promote ‘good governance’ and counter corruption.

Despite weak and ambiguous evidence, IFI advisers presume that market-liberalizing reforms will counter corruption. IFIs seek to privatize SOEs, presuming they have ‘governance structures’ liable to ‘political interference’ undermining development.

While some claim that free markets are associated with less corruption, others argue that SOE privatization has induced corruption, e.g., those with good connections successfully appropriate former SOEs, often for ‘asset-stripping’ and other such ends.

Powerful IFIs successfully promoted their reform agendas in developing countries when governments lacked the capacity to resist. IFIs thus served as agents of policy reforms desired by powerful governments, rather than those needed for national progress.

IFIs pushed for privatization, without considering conditions needed to avoid abuse. They transplanted ‘regulatory innovations’ from the developed world onto developing countries, often regardless of local contexts. Hence, the IFIs rarely facilitated, let alone required responsible regulation.

Insider information for corruption
Privatization induces corruption by creating new rents and unleashing processes that undermine anti-corruption efforts. While privatization generates rents to be captured, especially by ‘insiders’, rent-seeking undermines safeguards against such abuses.

Different modes of privatizing state-owned assets create economic rents, e.g., by putting public assets up for sale to be more easily appropriated privately. Corruption opportunities arise from privatization processes, especially from the sale of public assets, especially when managed by former SOE managers.

Information advantages enable rent appropriation, encouraging corruption to secure advantage. Outsiders have less access to information than ‘insiders’, such as managers and public officials, who use it to enrich themselves.

Greedy managers may fake accounts and undervalue firms in order to buy them cheap. Bidders may also try to influence key decisionmakers to secure rents from privatized SOEs.

Undermining anti-corruption
Once ‘privateers’ have acquired assets, they try to protect these acquisitions and related incomes, and to avoid detection and punishment, e.g., by bribing key public officials to get favourable treatment.

Privatization tends to weaken anti-corruption efforts as institutions deteriorate. Even if most people are not corrupt, such efforts weaken institutions, and consequently enable corruption. Thus, corruption associated with privatization reduces anti-corruption efforts.

Evidence on conditionalities said to reduce corruption is less conclusive. While they may reduce corruption in the short term, such reforms are likely to be detrimental in the longer term.

‘Insiders’ use their advantages to acquire newly privatized state assets, seizing new opportunities engendered by privatization. As favourable treatment in exchange for inducements to decision-makers is illegal, those involved cover up their corrupt activities.

Privatization generates massive rents that increase corruption, while motivating rentiers and rent-seekers to weaken state capacity. The resulting vicious circle of weakening institutions and increasing corruption is difficult to end.

No neoliberal solutions
IMF conditions seeking to eliminate rents are rarely effective because governments and insiders find other ways for the influential to capture rents. Reduced government capacities and capabilities also compromise the efficacy of anti-corruption efforts, even if serious.

Privatization thus undermines anti-corruption efforts, while privatization and market liberalization do not reduce corruption, as claimed by neoliberals. Thus, reduction of the state role in the economy, market liberalization and privatization have worsened corruption.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram, a former economics professor, was United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, and received the Wassily Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought

What is biofumigation and the connection to soil health?

Authentic news,No fake news.

---

• 
  
  Credit: Credit: Justin O’Dea.
  A Brassica juncea cover crop nourishes pollinators for two to four weeks before it is turned into soils to help mitigate soil-borne crop pathogens. These multifunctional cover crops also excel at catching soluble nutrients, improving soil infiltration, and returning organic matter to soils.

Newswise — June 17, 2019 – You may have noticed that some vegetables, like cabbages and mustards, have distinct smells. Some of that scent comes from sulfur compounds produced by the plants when growing. The Soil Science Society of America’s (SSSA) June 15th Soils Matter blog looks at how plants can share some of these smelly products with the soil – and in the process offer antimicrobial assistance!

According to blogger Justin O’Dea, Brassica plants – cabbages and mustards – can be used to control some out-of-control soil microbes. The process is called biofumigation.

“Using mustard plants for their ability to release chemical compounds is called biofumigation,” says O’Dea, who works with Washington State University. “On the surface, the process seems straightforward:

1. Mustard is planted and grown as a cover crop.
2. The mature mustard plants are chopped finely, and turned into the soil.
3. The soil is then packed and moistened.
4. The soil is often covered with a mulch to keep it warm and moist, as well as to hold the biofumigation gases in the soil.”

In practice, applying these techniques in a farm setting is a bit tougher. “There is a lot of chemistry involved during and after this process,” says O’Dea. “Let’s simplify it to say that the moisture and warmth of the soil start a series of reactions that make compounds that are natural fungicides.”

So O’Dea and others proposed using biofumigation to rid northeast soils of a fungal disease when a blight was hurting the pumpkins and peppers ready to be harvested in the fall of 2012. Conditions were set for this infection the previous year – after 2011’s hurricane and tropical storm season left soils wet.

Read the outcomes and the entire post here: https://soilsmatter.wordpress.com/2019/06/15/what-is-biofumigation-and-the-connection-to-soil-health

Iran scrambles to lift petrochemical sales as sanctions hammer oil

Authentic news,No fake news.

LONDON/DUBAI/SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Iran has been racing to step up exports of petrochemicals and tap new markets to compensate for sliding oil sales, Iranian and international industry sources said, but now risks losing that crucial revenue as Washington tightens the screw on sanctions.

FILE PHOTO: A man counts Iranian rials at a currency exchange shop, before the start of the U.S. sanctions on Tehran, in Basra, Iraq November 3, 2018. REUTERS/Essam al-Sudani/File Photo

Tehran has been selling increased volumes of petrochemical products at below market rates, in countries including Brazil, China and India, since the United States reimposed sanctions on Iranian oil exports in November, according to the six sources who include two senior Iranian government officials.

Available ship-tracking data also points to a rise in monthly shipments since then.

The scramble to bolster petrochemical sales could be an indication of how successful the U.S. administration of Donald Trump has been in choking off Iran’s oil revenues, which have fallen further than under previous sanctions in 2012.

While the November sanctions applied to petrochemicals as well, the four industry sources said there was a degree of ambiguity given the multiple types of products - including urea, ammonia and methanol - which allowed Iran to keep selling.

However on Friday the U.S. Treasury moved to tighten the restrictions by prohibiting companies from doing any business with Iran’s largest petrochemical group, Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company, citing its ties to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards. The measures also apply to 39 subsidiary companies and foreign-based sales agents.

The Treasury said it intended to “vigorously enforce” the new petrochemical sanctions, which could deal another hammer blow to the Iranian economy.

It is difficult to put a comprehensive figure on Iran’s income from petrochemicals, Iran’s second-largest export industry after oil and gas, but officials said in February that non-oil revenues had surpassed the amount earned by oil exports.

This week Iranian media quoted Ahmad Sarami, a member of the Iranian Oil, Gas and Petrochemical Products Exporters’ Union, as saying Tehran received $11 billion from petrochemical exports in the year ending in March.

The petrochemicals push comes as Iran’s oil exports fell to around 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) in May, less than half of April’s level and down from at least 2.5 million bpd in April last year, according to tanker data and industry sources.

Iran’s annual oil revenue has averaged around $50 billion in recent years. However a senior U.S. official said in March that Tehran had lost $10 billion in revenue since sanctions were reimposed in November.

In a sign of the shifting industry landscape, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in Tehran in April that Iran should move toward the sale of oil products such as petrochemicals instead of crude.

Iranian authorities, who do not recognize U.S. sanctions, dismissed the latest restrictions announced on Friday and vowed to press on with petrochemical exports. Sarami of the exporters’ union described the American measures as “psychological warfare”.

A spokesman for Iran’s National Petroleum Company confirmed the ramp-up of petrochemical exports since November, but declined to comment on the destinations.

BOUND FOR BRAZIL

In recent weeks Iran has been sending test cargoes to Brazil, a new market for Iranian petrochemicals exports, said two separate international trading sources, who like the other sources declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Carlos Millnetz, a director at chemical company Eleva Química Ltda, based in Brazil’s southern Santa Catarina state, told Reuters they had been importing urea from Iran.

“Iran wanted to diversify the destinations, they were looking for a Brazilian partner, and we thought it was a good opportunity,” he said.

Millnetz said the company had checked with the Brazilian government before starting the business and established there were no restrictions.

“What they told me was that U.S. sanctions applied to oil-based produces, crudes and fuels, etc. Ammonia by-products such as urea are not included, they can be traded,” he added. “I had all the paperwork, all the permits from the government, I would never do something that had any restrictions.”

He said the latest sanctions announcement did not affect the purchases.

Two Iranian vessels, Bavand and Termeh, made deliveries to Imbituba port in southern Brazil between March and April bound for Eleva Química, publicly available ship-tracking data shows.

At least 230,000 tonnes of urea had already been booked for Brazil in recent weeks, which included the two shipments for Eleva Química, the trading sources said.

Ship-tracking data showed at least 10 vessels carrying petrochemicals each made at least two voyages from Iran in November, whereas in October four vessels each made one trip. However, the data may not give the full picture because ships can turn off their tracking transponders and there can be limited port reception, including in Iran.

Two industry sources, who are based in the Middle East and Asia and are familiar with Iran’s petrochemicals activity, said the country had been selling cargoes into China and India, which are established markets, and had made some overland deliveries to neighboring Pakistan.

Iran has been offering discounts in the region of $40 per tonne cheaper than market rates of about $260 to $280 a tonne, saving buyers millions of dollars in equivalent currency, the sources added.

Ship-tracking data showed at least 10 cargoes of methanol had been shipped to China from Iran since the start of the year. It was not clear who bought the cargoes.

There were separately multiple shipments to India this year to unknown buyers. One vessel made at least six voyages to India from Iran and transported cargoes of ammonia, according to ship-tracking data and sources with knowledge of the matter.

Slideshow (2 Images)

The country of origin of petrochemicals is much easier to conceal than that of grades of oil.

UNDERCUTTING MARKET

The U.S. sanctions imposed in November banned purchases of Iranian petrochemical products which include “any aromatic, olefin, and synthesis gas, and any of their derivatives, including ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylene, ammonia, methanol, and urea”.

However a separate document by the Treasury’s enforcement division OFAC says “in keeping with the EIA’s (U.S. Energy Information Administration) standard definition, petroleum products do not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biofuels, methanol, and other non-petroleum fuels”.

This could suggest a discrepancy in the types of petrochemical products that were banned, such as methanol and fertilisers, the industry sources said.

Behzad Mohammadi, Iran’s deputy petroleum minister for petrochemical affairs, said in May that the wide diversity of petrochemical products and high international demand for them made the industry unsanctionable.

However, Aaron Hutman, Washington-based counsel with law firm Pillsbury, which advises companies globally on sanctions compliance, said firms could still be leaving themselves open to potential penalties by dealing in Iranian petrochemicals.

“Companies should not perceive discrepancies or loopholes in U.S. energy-related secondary sanctions,” he added. “The goal of U.S. officials appears to have been a comprehensive warning, and non-U.S. companies or banks would be taking a risk in any attempt to parse words within the petrochemical universe.”

Given the uncertainties over sanctions enforcement, Iranian traders said they had been cautious in conducting business.

Two Iranian traders said they had struck petrochemicals deals using front companies in Turkey, in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and also other neighboring countries, declining to disclose further details.

One of the traders said cargoes were concluded either in cash using non-U.S. dollar currencies or by barter, to avoid falling foul of separate U.S. financial sanctions that bar Iranian companies from the global dollar system.

The traders said they used euros and UAE dirhams in transactions and that buyers in Turkey and the UAE were more likely to be middle men who then redistributed cargoes.

A senior Iranian government official, who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter, said shipments through Turkey had been stepped up since November, with the port of Izmir a favored gateway.

A second senior official, who has been involved in meetings with buyers, said there was huge interest in Iranian petrochemical products because of their quality and price.

“Pressure by any country cannot stop Iran’s exports,” he added.