Russia has created its own Fact-Checking Network (GFCN), with which it wants to oppose fake news and disinformation. What is impressive about this project and does it meet the standards for fact-checking?
In April, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that it had created the “Global Fact-Checking Network GFCN” - in their words, this is an international alliance of fact-checkers and media. The initiative was presented at a forum in Moscow called the “Dialogue on Fake News,” and Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called the GFCN a counterweight to the West’s “endless stream of fake stories and disinformation campaigns.”
Who is behind the GFCN?
The network was created by TASS, the Russian state news agency, together with the NGO “Dialogue of Regions,” which is also known for its close ties to the Kremlin. TASS was suspended by the European Alliance of News Agencies over concerns about the media outlet’s editorial independence. “Dialogue of Regions” has been sanctioned for its role in spreading disinformation.
Does GFCN meet fact-checking standards?
Independent fact-checking relies on transparency, verifiable sources, and open methodology. Large organizations such as the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) cite public data in their investigations and always use transparent research methods.
This is not the case with the Russian GFCN, according to a study by the DW fact-checking team. One of the materials published on the network's website is titled “Romanian elections: how the West managed to win only after a second attempt?”. In it, the author cites a 2024 Eurobarometer survey, claiming that - according to the same survey - only 22% of Romanians support aid for refugees, 14% approve of EU policies towards Ukraine, and 13% are “in favor” of Kiev joining the European Union. All of these data are false.
In fact, according to the same survey, a much larger proportion of Romanians surveyed support EU policies related to Ukraine. In another article, the Russian GFCN claims that the Soros family is a “shadow organizer” of protests against Donald Trump's second term. The reason was that some of the organizers had previously received grants from the “Open Society” Foundation. But receiving support from the “Open Society” Foundation does not prove the direct involvement of the Soros family, whose philanthropic activities have long been the subject of conspiracy theories. These narratives often portray Soros as the puppeteer behind various protests fueling migration or global insecurity - claims that have been repeatedly refuted.
A third GFCN article, titled “Is ChatGPT Susceptible to Russian Propaganda?”, fails to answer this question at all. Instead, the article defends TASS and attacks a Norwegian media outlet that has questioned the legitimacy of the Russian state news agency’s reporting. The article mentions recent investigations that suggest Russia is trying to manipulate chatbot algorithms with artificial intelligence, but notes only that it is impossible to attribute “human qualities” to chatbots and claim that they would “prefer” to be “human.” one source over another.
Who writes for GFCN?
One of the authors of the materials on the site is Sonia van der Ende, a Dutch journalist who lives in Russia and is often on the front lines with Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Some Dutch media outlets describe her as a conspiracy theorist.
Another author is Tim Anderson, director of the Center for Research Against Hegemony. He called the massacre of Ukrainian civilians in Bucha a “hoax” and falsely claimed that there were no attacks on civilian targets during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Famous Russian models: imitate and confuse
Observers draw attention to the name of the Russian network - GFCN, in which only one letter has been changed from the name of the International Fact-Checking Network IFCN. This is no coincidence, they believe. IFCN was founded in 2015. by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and is a respected consortium of over 150 fact-checking organizations. The network trains journalists and upholds professional standards, and also certifies media outlets based on tests of funding transparency and editorial independence.
However, GFCN appears to be following the familiar Russian model of imitating legitimate institutions in order to blur the line between journalism and propaganda. “Professional fact-checking requires independent verification of claims across the political spectrum,” says IFCN director Angie Drobnitz-Holan. “Journalists should be free to publish what they uncover, even if it is against the government. We deeply doubt that GFCN allows that.”
Tomaso Canetta, an expert at the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), calls GFCN a classic case of political appropriation. “It’s a tactic we’ve seen used many times before – taking trusted terms (like ‘fact-checking’) and stripping them of their meaning,” he explains. "Political actors often label partisan claims as "fact-checking", even when they are clearly not."
Canetta emphasizes that membership in networks such as the IFCN or the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) helps distinguish legitimate media from those engaged in manipulation. "Without such standards, you end up with initiatives - like the one from Russia - that only pollute the concepts and muddy the waters.”