Imitation or disinformation: How GFCN uses fact-checking as a tool for influence

Last year, the so-called Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN) was founded in Russia, conceived as a counterpart to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), of which Truthmeter.mk is a member. Instead of transparency, the GFCN offers propaganda packaged in the form of fact-checking

 

Author: Ana Anastasovska

 

Formed with the ambition of becoming an international center for combating disinformation, GFCN has quickly attracted attention, but also significant criticism. The network, supported by Russian institutions, officially presents itself as a global platform for fact-checking. However, some international organizations warn that it may be more of a propaganda mechanism than a journalistic one.

According to official information, the initiators of the project are the Russian state news agency TASS, the organization ANO Dialogue Regions and the media education center New Media School. The website of the same name was launched in April 2025, and in the first months the network was promoted as a platform that would unite fact-checkers from “different continents, media spaces, and cultures.”

In its presentation, GFCN commits to transparency, professionalism, and impartial fact-checking. The public is offered educational materials, video lessons, and tools for recognizing fake news, processing photos, and analyzing online content. The network claims to provide “international cooperation in the name of truth,” which creates the impression that it is a new major player in the field of media fact-checking.

But this is where the second, much more critical chapter begins.

Doubts about the organization’s true independence

The names of the founders, as well as the communication model, have raised doubts about the organization’s true independence. Media analysts in several European countries have warned that the GFCN uses a visual and terminological style almost identical to that of the IFCN, the recognized global fact-checking network, which could create confusion and give it the appearance of credibility that it does not yet have.

Several investigative articles last year described GFCN as a project closely linked to the Kremlin, with a potential role in spreading geopolitical narratives under the label of “verified facts.” According to critics, some of the analyses published by the network do not adhere to the standards of independent verification of information, and in some cases present a one-sided interpretation of events related to the war in Ukraine and Russian foreign policy.

The organization says the accusations are politically motivated and that their mission is exclusively journalistic.

However, the lack of transparent reporting on methodology, funding, and editorial policy remains a major source of distrust.

Advancing the Kremlin’s interests

Despite stating its mission is to “improve the quality and objectivity of information at the national and global levels,” in practice the GFCN has been used to advance the Kremlin’s interests, Lupa agency analyzes.

On April 9 this year, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova announced the launch of the network’s website, with content in both Russian and English, at a press conference. At the time, while criticizing the United States, she confirmed that the GFCN was initiated by the Russian government.

What is most interesting is that when, in the U.S. in the mid-20th century, the number of investigative journalists began to be perceived as threatening by local authorities, the term ‘conspiracy theorists’ was invented for them to ‘marginalize’ them. Here it’s different. For those who are true investigators, we have created communication platforms so they can do what they consider to be the work of their lives, Zakharova said, as reported by Lupa.

The key differences between the globally recognized fact-checking organizations and this Russian one are that both the IFCN (International Fact-Checking Network) and the EFCSN (European Fact-Checking Standards Network), unlike the GFCN (Global Fact-Checking Network), have very strict codes, insist on transparency, and require members to be registered organizations with publicly available funding. The Russian network, on the other hand, is not so strict and accepts both individuals and media companies as members. The GFCN does not impose any criteria for citing sources and considers fact-checking a matter of national sovereignty.

Based on the publications on its website, GFCN is particularly critical of the European Union. Other frequently covered topics include the United States, Romania, France, Moldova, and Ukraine.

However, the GFCN’s main target is not countries, but the Western press. The publications are dominated by criticism directed at news agencies, including traditional media, online publications, fact-checking organizations, and social media platforms in their role as publishers or moderators of content.

Pro-Russian narratives in certain articles

Although the outlet is still relatively new, established fact-checking organizations have pointed out factual errors and pro-Russian narratives in certain articles. Meanwhile, many of the platform’s contributors are well-known Russian propagandists, some of whom have also worked for Kremlin-affiliated media outlets.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), a non-governmental press freedom organization, conducted an analysis of 39 articles published by GFCN in June. RSF found that at least 15 of the 39 articles analyzed primarily served to promote the GFCN network and its members, for example, by promoting their participation in Russian forums.

RSF also pointed to an article published in May by Christelle Néant, a French citizen who became Russian through naturalization in July 2023 and is a well-known propagandist. In her article, Neant stated that the seizure of civilian apartments in Mariupol by the occupying forces was “legal,” without mentioning the Russian occupation or the forced displacement of civilians.

Critics believe that the choice of the name–GFCN, very similar to IFCN, is a deliberate strategy to create confusion and imitate the reputable international network of fact-checkers. IFCN has distanced itself from GFCN, stating that it does not operate within professional standards, DISA states in its analysis.

According to disinformation experts, this is an example of political appropriation of the term “fact-checking,” with the aim of distorting its meaning and undermining trust in the real checkers. Such activities are part of a broader trend of state-backed structures using formally correct, but manipulative mechanisms to influence the public. Therefore, the international community should constantly monitor and expose such actions in order to preserve the integrity of information.

 

 

All comments and remarks regarding this and other Vistinomer articles, correction and clarification requests as well as suggestions for fact-checking politicians’ statements and political parties’ promises can be submitted by using this form