SouthCheck Fact‑Check Methodology

 What We Fact-Check

SouthCheck focuses on factual claims that are publicly accessible and relevant to the public interest. This includes:

• Claims made by public figures, political parties, and institutions
  
  
• Viral content on social media
  
  
• Misleading images and videos
  
  
• Misinformation related to elections, communal issues, health, and the environment
  
  

We do not fact-check

• Personal opinions or interpretations
  
  
• Satirical or humorous content clearly intended as such
  
  
• Private disputes or unverifiable claims that lack public impact
  

 How We Fact-Check

Every fact-check goes through a structured editorial process:

1. Claim Identification
   We monitor social media platforms, messaging apps, public speeches, and user submissions to identify potentially false or misleading claims.
   
   
2. Research & Verification
   Our team investigates claims using:
   
   
• Public records and official statements
  
  
• Credible media reports and scientific literature
  
  
• Tools for reverse image search, metadata analysis, and satellite imagery
  
  
• Direct communication with subject-matter experts, where relevant
  
  
3. Editorial Review
   Each report is reviewed internally to ensure accuracy, fairness, and clarity before publication.
   
   
4. Rating the Claim
   We assign a verdict to each claim based on available evidence. The rating reflects the degree of factual accuracy or deception.

We categorize verified claims as:

• False: The claim is entirely inaccurate or fabricated.
  
  
• Misleading: Contains partial truths but distorts or omits key context.
  
  

We do not use a “True” rating, as our focus is on identifying misinformation. Each rating includes a clear explanation, source references, and verification tools used.

1. Ongoing Monitoring
   If new evidence becomes available, we update our fact-checks accordingly and include an “Update” note.
   
   

What Readers Can Expect

We are committed to transparency, accuracy, and public service. Readers can expect:

• Clear sourcing and links to evidence
  
  
• Methodical explanations of how conclusions were reached
  
  
• Updates or corrections when warranted
  
  

Corrections Policy

We distinguish between minor and major corrections:

• Minor Errors (e.g., typos, formatting issues): These are corrected without formal notification but reflected in the updated article.
  
  
• Major Errors (e.g., incorrect verdict, misinterpretation of facts): We clearly mark the article with a Correction or Update label explaining what changed and why.
  
  

Correction Requests
We welcome suggestions and correction requests. However, we do not respond to:

• Requests to take down a fact-check unless legally mandated
  
  
• Claims that fall outside the scope of fact-checking
  
  
• Repetitive, abusive, or non-substantive queries
  
  

To request a correction, write to us at editort@southcheck.in with the subject line: Correction Request – [Claim Title]

• Substantive errors are corrected within 48 hours.
  
  
• Correction notices are clearly appended, with timestamps and explanations.
  
  
• Major updates appear at the top of the article.

Funding & Independence

SouthCheck began operations in 2023 as a non-profit with support from the IFCN’s Build 2023 fund. The fund was used for the building of our website and initiating the operations. 

• ~35% of costs are covered by promoter investments; the rest is self-funded.
  
  
• We maintain strict editorial independence. No funder, political group, or external entity influences our editorial decisions.

 

SouthCheck is independently run by a separate parent company, Swastika Projects, with its own governance structure and board of directors. The majority shareholder of Swasthika is Kanthala Keerthi Reddy.

Board of Directors:

• Kanthala Keerthi Reddy
  
  
• Thoguta Praveen Kumar

 

Our incorporation document can be accessed here.

Team & Expertise

Our multilingual team includes journalists and verification specialists with expertise in:

• Investigative reporting
  
  
• OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence)
  
  
• Digital forensics
  
  
• South Indian regional languages
  
  

Team roles and bylines are publicly available for accountability.  Meet our editorial team here.

Non-Partisanship & Fairness

Commitment to Equal Treatment

• Consistent Standards Across All Claims
  We apply the same rigorous standards of evidence, fairness, and scrutiny to every claim we examine—regardless of who made it. Whether the claim originates from a politician, influencer, interest group, or social media user, our methodology and commitment remain unchanged.

Balanced Selection of Claims

• Objective Criteria for Claim Selection
  We select claims based on newsworthiness, potential for public impact, and the risk of misleading consequences—not based on the political leanings of claimants. Our aim is to address statements that are likely to spread widely or cause harm, ensuring coverage remains broad and neutral.

Transparency of Interests

• Disclosure of Possible Conflicts
  When citing sources, we note any relevant affiliations or interests that might influence their statements. Likewise, we disclose any organisational or financial relationships that could reasonably be perceived to affect our findings.
  
  

Editorial Independence

• No Agenda, No Advocacy
  We do not advocate for, nor support, any political party, candidate, or policy. Our role is solely to assess claims impartially—our editorial process is driven by the pursuit of the truth, not political outcomes.
  
  
  

Staff Conduct & Perception

• Culture of Neutrality Among Staff
  Our team—across reporters, editors, and contributors—refrains from engaging in partisan activity. This includes political donations, public endorsements, activism, or commentary that could create a perception of bias. We may share content, but never as a statement of support.