Organizations linked to the Kremlin have announced plans to establish a so-called fact-checking association that appears to be far from independent. The following is the translation of an article originally published by Facta.news
Russia aims to create an international association of self-proclaimed fact-checking organizations. The initiative, called the Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN), was announced on November 20th at the “Dialogue on Fakes 2.0” forum, an event that brought together media outlets and organizations acting as Kremlin propagandists. The forum, officially intended to present the initiative, outlined key features of the project: the so-called “fact-checking association” opposes existing coalitions of journalists and researchers engaged in fact-checking, and its main proponents are Kremlin-controlled outlets that have conducted disinformation campaigns in several countries over recent years.
The main promoters include TASS, the state-owned Russian news agency, and ANO Dialog, a nonprofit organization founded in 2019 by Moscow’s Department of Information and Technology. Although it claims to be independent, ANO Dialog is part of the propaganda machine run by Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2022, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, TASS was unanimously suspended from the European Alliance of News Agencies (EANA) for “not being able to provide unbiased news”. ANO Dialog, on the other hand, is under sanctions from both the European Union and the United States for conducting foreign interference and disinformation campaigns, including the notorious Doppelganger Operation, which impersonates credible media outlets to spread false information. Furthermore, both the alleged fact-checking alliance and the forum were promoted through a network of copycat websites named Pravda, launched over the past year to disseminate pro-Russian disinformation in multiple European languages.
In short, habitual disinformers now claim to be creating an alliance against disinformation. Behind this apparent contradiction lies a deliberate strategy that the Kremlin has been employing for years: distorting the concept of fact-checking and equating lies with fact-based reporting.
The real goals
“What do we offer?” told Vladimir Tabak, General Director of ANO Dialog, during his presentation at the convention. “In terms of goals, the first thing is bringing the international fact-checking community together around those who share our views and values”. Tabak explicitly ruled out collaboration with existing fact-checking networks and promised that the Russian project would train new “fact-checkers” and give its members access to a platform to catalog what they consider disinformation. The aim appears to be not only to distort the terminology and principles of fact-checking, but also to expand and strengthen the Kremlin’s propaganda network. By misusing terms central to independent fact-checking organizations, the Kremlin’s new initiative seeks to blur the line between truth and falsehood.
This is not the first time that Russian propaganda has appropriated the concept of “fact-checking” to discredit organizations and media outlets engaged in genuine verification of facts, while simultaneously lending false legitimacy to the messages promoted by its official narrative. This tactic is a deliberate distortion of reality: by leveraging state-controlled media, authoritarian regimes like Russia misuse the term “fact-checking” to dismiss international criticism as “fake news”. The goal is to portray independent media as politically biased, eventually labeling credible information as mere partisan opinions. This approach is not unique to Russian propaganda. Former US President Donald Trump, for example, often branded unfavorable news coverage as “fake news,” and after Elon Musk bought Twitter, his changes to the verification system — making blue checkmarks available for a fee — have also muddied the waters of authenticity and incentivized the spread of mis- and disinformation.
The underlying strategy is to promote the idea that the difference between fake and verified news lies not in the factual accuracy or journalistic standards but in the alleged political affiliation of the sources. The reason independent fact-checking associations were created is precisely to clear up the misconception of fact-checking as a self-proclaimed badge of authority. Unlike the proposed Russian imitation, however, these organizations do not rely on the sharing of “opinions and values” but are instead grounded in rigorous methodological, ethical, and journalistic standards, with established processes in place to ensure these standards are consistently upheld.
How fact-checking networks work
Fact-checking is a journalistic methodology with a long history, not a stamp of good intentions. Originating in the 20th century as an internal newsroom process to verify the accuracy of published information, it has since evolved to focus on the verification of political statements and, more recently, various forms of content circulating online. Modern fact-checking emphasizes a neutral tone, concise style, adherence to verifiable facts through solid methodologies, and transparent citations of sources. In combating the spread of false stories, fact-checking aims to expose and explain why specific information is false, misleading, or decontextualized, whenever possible.
Major fact-checking associations like the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) are alliances of organizations committed to combating disinformation. IFCN operates internationally and is linked to the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit US-based organization with a research center dedicated to journalism. EFCSN instead represents the European fact-checking community. Its democratically elected bodies certify member organizations’ compliance with the EFCSN Code, which sets high standards for methodology, ethics, and transparency. Membership of these networks is a globally recognized mark of reliability and independence, allowing access to collaborations with major social media platforms and eligibility for public grants, which require partnerships with certified, credible entities.
The dangers of the Kremlin’s strategy
Putin’s attempt is therefore to undermine the reputation and authority that these networks have built over time and to give an appearance of independence to media outlets that are, in fact, controlled by the Russian government. This is why the creation of a duplicate entity tied to Russia could become a significant issue. First of all, it damages the image that other international networks have earned through the participation of dozens of journalistic organizations, some of which are highly renowned and credible. This intensifies the Kremlin’s efforts to use the media it controls to spread its propaganda, disguising its false narratives as “fact-checking” by mimicking the aesthetic form but fundamentally contradicting the principles of independence and impartiality. It is, in essence, yet another step in the attempt to equate verified information with its distorted narratives.
Furthermore, the creation of a Russian-backed fact-checking brand could sow confusion among the public. Social media feeds might become inundated with false information disguised as fact-checking. The precise structure of the Russian initiative remains unclear so far. However, Tabak mentioned plans to recruit and train new propagandists, potentially allowing not only organizations but also individuals to join as “fact-checkers” aligned with Moscow’s views. This broad recruitment approach could widen the Kremlin’s propaganda base, enlisting compliant media outlets or influencers to spread biased or false information and muddy the waters of public discourse.
Enzo Panizio, journalist at Pagella Politica/Facta News and EDMO
Photo: Press service of the President of Russia