Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• The site has not been found currently and repeatedly to publish clearly and egregiously false information, even if it may have published such content in the past or even recently, whereupon it is likely to fail the criteria for not gathering and presenting news responsibly.
• Factual errors or misstatements on the site are generally minor.
• Major mistakes are generally quickly and transparently corrected or retracted.
• If the website repeatedly published significantly false content in the past, it has not regularly published such content in recent months.
• If the website repeatedly and accurately quotes other publications or sources making significantly false claims, it generally does not present those false claims as fact. However, doing so, especially without questioning the quoted false claim or presenting an alternative view, might mean that it will fail the criterion for gathering and presenting news responsibly.
• If the website sometimes publishes significant false claims, those claims represent a small proportion of its overall content, which otherwise generally adheres to journalistic standards.

Here are some reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• The site has displayed a pattern of publishing egregiously false claims on a regular and ongoing basis—meaning that a user is likely to encounter such a false claim on any given visit to the site. Egregiously false means that there is clear, credible evidence contradicting the claim such that a reasonable person taking care to get the facts right would be unlikely to make the false claim.
• The site repeatedly states as fact claims that are contradicted by an abundance of scientific evidence.
• The site repeatedly promotes conspiracy theories that cannot be disproven but have no basis in fact and are contradicted by an abundance of credible evidence.
• In some cases, a government-owned outlet that repeatedly and accurately, but uncritically, quotes the false claims of its government owner will fail this criterion. This is especially likely to be the case where the news outlet does not have an effective charter enabling it to publish independently of the views of the government.

Note: In assessing this criterion, NewsGuard reviews both claims made in news articles and factual statements made in opinion pieces, even if those pieces are clearly labeled as opinion.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• The site generally reports on events factually and presents information in context.
• The site generally attributes information to credible sources and credits content that it republishes to the original source.
• The site generally publishes claims that can be verified, either by attributing information to reliable sources or providing evidence or firsthand reporting.
• When articles quote someone making a clearly false claim, the site typically notes the falsehood to readers.
• When articles quote someone making an unsubstantiated claim for which there is significant countervailing evidence, the site typically includes countervailing evidence or notes that the claim is unsubstantiated.
• If the site has made some false or unsubstantiated claims, it has not repeatedly done so.

Here are some reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• The site egregiously distorts or misrepresents facts—for example, taking quotes out of context or citing a scientific study to make a false point not supported by the research.
• The site fails NewsGuard’s criterion for not repeatedly publishing false content.
• The site regularly quotes sources or other publications making clearly false claims without noting that those claims are false.
• The site regularly quotes sources or other publications making unsubstantiated claims about which there is credible countervailing evidence without noting that the information is unsubstantiated or providing some countervailing evidence.
• The site has published numerous older, clearly false claims on significant topics that remain online uncorrected, even if it has not published such claims recently.
• The site publishes one-sided coverage of issues, such as politics, without clearly disclosing that it is owned or financed by a government or organization that supports the site’s views—for example, a website owned by a political campaign that publishes negative stories about other candidates without disclosing that conflict of interest.
• The website publishes poorly sourced information that is difficult to verify and omits context such as times, places, and names.
• The site routinely republishes content from other publishers without attribution or credit to the original source.
• The website predominantly cites anonymous sources whose connection to the information is not clearly described.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• There is evidence that the site has a regular practice of correcting errors in its stories, publishing at least one correction a year and publishing previous corrections in past years.
• Corrections are visible and the error being corrected generally is clearly described to the reader.
• The site has not yet been publishing content for a full year and, while it has not published corrections, NewsGuard’s review did not find clearly false claims that would require a correction—making it too early for NewsGuard to find a failure on this criterion.

Note: A Nutrition Label may note that a site has published a corrections policy, but the existence of such a policy is not necessary to pass this criterion.

Here are some reasons that a site may fail this criterion:

• The site does not regularly correct errors, meaning NewsGuard could not find evidence of at least one correction issued per year in recent years.
• The site repeatedly deletes or edits inaccurate content to remove errors instead of transparently issuing corrections.
• The site previously published transparent corrections but has not done so in the last 12 months.
• The site only corrects errors as a result of NewsGuard’s review process.
• Even if the site regularly issues corrections for minor errors, it repeatedly leaves significantly false claims uncorrected.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• The site publishes opinion content in a designated section clearly labeled as opinion using terminology that would be understood by the average reader, such as “opinion,” “editorial,” “commentary,” “analysis” or another label that an average reader would understand.
• The content signals that it is the opinion of the author by providing the author’s name with a colon in the headline.
• If the site has an overall agenda or point of view in its news coverage that it advances by its choice of the news it covers and the opinion it publishes, it clearly discloses and describes its perspective to readers somewhere prominent on the site—such as on an about page or the site’s homepage.
• Content presented as news generally does not contain opinionated language.
• The site clearly describes itself as an opinion site, does not purport to publish straightforward news content, and does not present any of its content as news.

Here are some of the reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• Content presented as news frequently contains opinionated language.
• The site advances a particular point of view through clearly one-sided story selection or opinionated content without disclosing that point of view to readers.
• The site mixes news stories and opinion stories throughout the site without clearly distinguishing between the two types of stories.
• The site inaccurately labels its news or opinion content.

Sites might receive an “N/A” on this criterion if:

• The site is clearly the website of an advocacy organization and is transparent about its mission.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• The site publishes accurate, factual headlines that properly communicate the content they represent.
• If the site publishes buzzy, slightly sensational headlines, they generally do not misrepresent facts or misdescribe the content to which they refer.
• If the website has published some deceptive headlines, it has not done so frequently enough that a user would be likely to encounter the headlines on a regular basis.

Here are some reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• The site frequently runs headlines that do not accurately reflect the content.
• The site regularly publishes headlines that contain significant falsehoods.

Sites might receive an “N/A” on this criterion if:

• The site does not publish headlines.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• The website clearly identifies its owner in a prominent, easily accessible section of the site.
• If any of the site’s owners or major funders has a notable political affiliation, financial interest, or other role or affiliation that might present a conflict of interest with the site’s coverage, that information is disclosed clearly to readers.
• The site discloses its ownership and financing in specific stories that refer to the owner or to subjects of coverage connected to the owner or funder.
• If the site is owned by a nonprofit organization, the site identifies major donors in a place where a user can find that information easily.

Here are some reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• The site does not clearly identify its owner, including any parent company.
• The site’s only mention of its owner is in a place that an average user would not be likely to look, notice, or understand, such as a copyright notice or on a “Terms of Service” page.
• The site is owned by a nonprofit but does not identify its major donors, if any.
• The site does not disclose potential conflicts of interest involving its owners and financers in individual stories related to the owner or funders.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• Advertising is distinguished from editorial content either with clear visual cues or explicit labels such as “advertisement,” “paid content,” “sponsored,” or another label an average reader would understand indicates that the content is paid.
• If the site publishes sponsored content, such as paid articles or articles with affiliate links, it clearly discloses to readers that the content is paid in a prominent place, such as the beginning of the sponsored article or next to each affiliate link. A disclosure at the bottom of a long article or in a small, hard-to-notice typeface does not meet this standard.
• If the site publishes content via a commercial content-sharing arrangement or partnership, the site discloses that arrangement or partnership.

Here are some of the reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• The site presents advertisements and paid articles alongside links to other editorial content on the site without clearly distinguishing which is which.
• The site includes links to buy products within its articles for which it receives affiliate or referral payments without clearly and prominently disclosing that commercial arrangement to readers.
• The site publishes paid content, affiliate links, and other commercial content that is labeled in a manner that the average reader would not understand to mean that the content is commercial — such as “From Our Partners” or “Around the Web.”
• The site is paid to run promotional articles on behalf of a company or organization but does not disclose the commercial relationship to a reader.

Sites receive an “N/A” on this criterion if:

• The site does not publish advertisements or sponsored content.

Here are some of the reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• The website identifies someone in charge of editorial decisions in an easily accessible section of the site and provides some way for readers to contact the site about editorial issues.
• If the site’s editorial leaders have a significant potential conflict of interest, such as involvement in a political campaign or with a company on which the site reports, any such conflicts are disclosed to readers.

Here are some reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• The website does not identify someone who oversees editorial content, or only does so on a page that is not easily accessible to an average visitor to the site.
• Even if the site lists the name of a person in charge of editorial content, it does not provide any way for users to contact the site about editorial issues.
• One or more of the site’s editorial leaders has a significant potential conflict of interest, such as involvement in a political organization or with a company about which the site reports, that is not disclosed to readers.

Here are some reasons that a site might pass this criterion:

• Content is typically attributed to an author or content creator whose full name is provided, and the site provides either contact information or relevant biographical information for most content creators. (Examples of contact information include the content creator’s phone number, email address, Twitter handle, or other method through which the content creator can be contacted.)
• If content is not typically attributed to a specific author or content creator, the website provides a staff directory listing the names, relevant biographical information, and contact information for its content creators, along with an indication of the general topics or areas of coverage to which each content creator contributes.

Here are some reasons that a site might fail this criterion:

• Content never or rarely is attributed to a specific author or content creator.
• Content often is bylined with only the author or content creator’s first name, initials, or a pseudonym.
• Content is attributed to specific authors or content creators, but the site does not provide contact information or relevant biographical information about its content producers.

Note: Some publications tell NewsGuard that they decline to name their content creators for fear that they will be subject to reprisal or that doing so is an invasion of their privacy. In some instances, this is a legitimate concern and constitutes a strong argument against this criterion. However, NewsGuard believes that as a general matter journalists should stand behind, and be accountable for, their work. Thus, it remains a weakness of the NewsGuard system that otherwise highly professional news websites operating in areas where journalists may be in jeopardy will get a 95 Green score instead of a 100. This reflects the fact that operating in certain regions or countries means this disclosure is impractical, depriving readers of this information.