Skip to content

adulis-review.pages.dev

Adulis Review

Standards

Methodology

How we choose claims, gather evidence, reach a verdict and ask outlets to respond. The same process applies to every fact check, whoever published the claim.

Last revised

The five verdicts

Every fact check ends in exactly one of these verdicts. The definitions are fixed; we do not invent new ratings for individual cases.

  1. False

    Primary evidence (documents, verifiable footage, on-the-record statements or official data) directly contradicts the claim, and no credible evidence supports it.

  2. Misleading

    The claim contains some factually accurate elements, but omits essential context, misattributes, conflates separate events, or presents information in a way that leads a reasonable reader to a false conclusion.

  3. Unsupported

    The claim was presented as established fact, but neither the outlet nor its cited sources provide evidence that can be independently verified, and we found none. This is not a finding that the claim is false.

  4. Disputed

    There is credible, verifiable evidence both for and against the claim, and the available record does not allow a firm conclusion. We set out the evidence on each side.

  5. Accurate

    The claim is supported by verifiable primary evidence and is presented with the context needed to understand it. We publish accurate verdicts as well as negative ones.

Outlet response

Separately from the verdict, every fact check records how the outlet answered our correction request.

Awaiting response
A correction request was sent and the response window is still open, or no request has been sent yet.
Corrected
The outlet issued a correction or amended the piece.
Partially corrected
The outlet amended part of the piece but left the core claim in place.
No response
The outlet did not respond within 30 days of our correction request.
Outlet stands by claim
The outlet responded and declined to correct. Its response is summarised on the page.

What we check

We review factual claims about Eritrea and the Horn of Africa published by international news organisations, wire agencies, research bodies and prominent individuals. A claim qualifies when it:

  • is a statement of fact, not opinion or prediction;
  • was published by an outlet or person with a significant audience; and
  • can in principle be checked against evidence.

We prioritise claims that are widely repeated, that are cited by other outlets as established fact, or that concern serious allegations. We do not check satire, clearly labelled opinion, or private individuals.

How a fact check is built

1. Capture. Before anything else, the original is archived with the Wayback Machine and archive.ph, and a full-page screenshot is kept. Every fact check links to these copies so readers can see the claim exactly as published, even if it is later edited or removed.

2. Quote exactly. The claim is reproduced word for word. If we must shorten it, we mark the omission. We never paraphrase a claim into something easier to rebut.

3. Trace the sourcing. We identify who the outlet relied on: a named official, an unnamed source, a report, a social media post, another outlet. Where a document is cited, we read the whole document, not the passage quoted.

4. Gather evidence. We look for primary evidence: official documents, original footage, satellite imagery, on-the-record statements, court records and data. Each item is listed as a numbered exhibit with a link. Evidence we cannot show to readers is not used to reach a verdict.

5. Seek the other side. We look specifically for evidence that would support the claim. A fact check that only lists evidence against a claim is incomplete.

6. Review. A second editor who did not research the piece checks every exhibit and the reasoning before publication. Fact checks rated False or Misleading require sign-off by two editors.

How we decide a verdict

The verdict reflects the evidence available at the time of publication, not our view of the outlet or of the wider issue. The test is whether a reasonable reader, relying on the claim as published, would come away with an accurate understanding.

Two points of practice:

  • Absence of evidence is not falsity. When a claim cannot be verified, we say Unsupported, not False.
  • The verdict applies to the claim, not the story. An otherwise sound article can contain a false claim; a weak article can contain an accurate one.

Contacting outlets

Before publishing a negative verdict we contact the outlet, set out what we found, and allow at least three working days for a response. After publication we send a formal correction request. The outlet’s response, or the absence of one after 30 days, is recorded on the fact check and in the outlet record.

Updating a fact check

If new evidence emerges, we update the fact check, mark it Updated with the date, and describe the change. If the change alters the verdict, it is also entered in our corrections log.

Type to search the record.