Support us
False claims can travel across borders in seconds, especially during wartime. For audiences in Australia, where a rumour may move from a Facebook community group to talkback radio and then into a national conversation, reliable verification has become a practical public service.
Our foundation helped launch a fact-checking network linking journalists and media activists in Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, Kharkiv and Dnipro. The project combined training, editorial support and cooperation between local newsrooms so that residents could assess claims affecting elections, public safety and daily life.
The work reflects the mission of the Free Press Foundation: to strengthen independent journalism about Ukraine and global affairs. Instead of treating fact-checking as a separate specialist activity, we embedded it in reporting routines used by city-based journalists who understand their communities.
That local focus matters in Australia too. A claim about a council decision in Brisbane, a bushfire warning near Adelaide or a health service in regional New South Wales requires local knowledge as well as source checking. Good verification is strongest when it is close to the people affected.
The first step was to identify trusted reporters and editors in five cities with different media environments and security conditions. Each participant brought knowledge of local officials, community organisations, public records and the information channels used by residents.
We established shared standards for checking photographs, videos, official statements, polling claims and social media posts. Journalists learned to separate confirmed facts from assumptions, record the original source of a claim and explain uncertainty plainly rather than filling gaps with speculation.
The network also created a channel for rapid peer review. A reporter working under pressure in Kharkiv could ask a colleague in Lviv to examine a document, while a team in Odesa could share a method for verifying maritime or security-related information. This cooperation reduced duplication and improved consistency.
Training sessions covered reverse-image searches, geolocation, open-source intelligence, archive tools and the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Participants practised tracing a statement back to its first publication and comparing it with primary evidence, including court records, government datasets and official election information.
We paid close attention to language. A fact-check should tell readers what is known, what is disputed and what evidence supports the assessment. This approach is useful for Australian newsrooms dealing with claims about the Australian Electoral Commission, census figures or proposed legislation, where a misleading headline can distort public understanding before the details are read.
Media literacy also benefits from simple comparisons. Our explainer on baseball and cricket shows how clear explanations can resolve confusion without assuming prior knowledge. The same principle guides our fact-checks: define the issue, show the evidence and avoid unnecessary jargon.
The network supplied templates for claim selection, source logs, corrections and publication notes. These tools helped small newsrooms work efficiently when they had limited staff, unstable power supplies or reporters covering several beats at once.
The project prioritised claims with a clear public impact. False information about evacuation routes, humanitarian aid, voting procedures or military developments can cause immediate harm. Editors therefore assessed both the reach of a claim and the possible consequences of repeating it.
The same habits suit local reporting in Australia, where community newspapers and digital outlets often work with modest budgets. They can also help journalists comply with editorial standards while avoiding defamatory statements under Australian law.
Verification work in Ukraine can involve threats, surveillance, harassment and exposure to violence. The foundation provided guidance on digital security, source protection and risk assessment, allowing journalists to investigate false narratives without unnecessarily endangering themselves or their contacts.
Legal awareness was part of this support. Our review of front-line legal risks explains why journalists working near conflict zones need to understand restrictions, evidence handling and possible liability. These lessons have wider relevance for Australian reporters covering protests, court proceedings or emergency operations.
Australian media workers also operate within a complex framework shaped by defamation law, privacy principles, contempt rules and the Online Safety Act. A fact-checking unit needs editorial courage, but it also needs careful wording, secure communications and a clear record of how each conclusion was reached.
The project’s value is visible in stronger newsroom routines, faster collaboration and greater transparency with readers. Fact-checkers began sharing verification methods across cities, while local journalists gained confidence in challenging false claims without turning every story into a political argument.
We also treated corrections as a sign of accountability rather than failure. Publishing an update, naming the changed evidence and preserving the original context helps audiences judge a newsroom’s reliability. That standard matters in Australia, where trust is shaped by repeated interactions with local outlets, public broadcasters and community pages.
A fact-checking network cannot remove disinformation from the public sphere. It can make reliable reporting more resilient, connect journalists who might otherwise work in isolation and give communities better tools for judging what they see. That is the lasting purpose of the initiative: independent journalism that remains useful when the information environment is at its most uncertain.
