Fact-checker's media map: how to systematize the information field to combat fakes

In the era of information flooding, it is no longer enough for a fact-checker to simply check facts. It is important to understand who, how, and for what purpose is distributing them. Identical narratives in different publications, coordinated attacks, hidden connections between media — all these are signs of complex disinformation campaigns. Only a systematic approach can counter this chaos. A media map — a detailed diagram of the media landscape that reveals its hidden connections and true motives — becomes such a systematization and analysis tool for a fact-checker.

A media map is a specialized document for organizations that records all essential information about the media with which the organization interacts or plans to work: types of media, their circulation, target audience, contact persons, and publication schedules. This is a specialized tool for analyzing and monitoring sources that may pose a threat to the reliability of information. The fact-checker’s media map also systematizes data on potentially unreliable media: their affiliation, history of disseminating fakes, manipulation methods, target audience, and examples of unreliable publications. This allows for the prompt identification of suspicious narratives, tracking coordinated disinformation campaigns, and minimizing the risks of using unreliable data.

Why does a fact checker need to create a media map?

  • Systematization and structuring of information about the resources the organization works with.
  • Optimization of the fact-checking process, which allows you to quickly find the necessary sources, contacts and platforms to confirm or refute data.
  • Increasing the efficiency of monitoring the information field to identify fakes.
  • Improving the quality and reliability of fact-checking publications through timely access to relevant and verified information.
  • Ensuring transparency and audience trust through a systematic approach to working with information sources.
  • Supporting communications with journalists and editors for the prompt exchange of facts and joint work to refute unreliable facts.
  • In conditions of a fast and extensive flow of information, it is important to be able to quickly check the facts themselves, as well as understand who is distributing them and why.


Media maps allow you to see which resources are owned by the same people or funded by the same source. This helps to understand possible hidden connections between several sources. For example, if several media outlets, seemingly unrelated, publish information that is identical in meaning, the media map may show that they have a common owner.

Media map analysis helps to identify targeted information campaigns
If a certain topic is being actively covered by multiple resources that are interconnected, this may be a sign of coordinated propaganda activity. A fact-checker who sees such a picture will have to pay special attention to verifying the information coming from this network.

Media maps often include information about the reputation of resources, their ratings, which allows you to quickly assess the reliability of the information source. For example, if a resource is associated with a media outlet known for frequently publishing fake news, this may serve as a signal for a more thorough check.

Tracking the financial flows that support media is also important. Media maps can show which companies (state or non-state organizations) finance which media. This can help determine whose interests may be reflected in the information published.

To be fully functional and meet the set objectives, a media map should not be just a list of resources, but a comprehensive scheme that helps analyze information systematically. Below is an approximate scheme of a media map for a fact checker:

1. Basic information

– Name and type of media (e.g. TASS, news agency);

– Country/region of origin (Russia, USA, UK, etc.);

– URLs and social networks (website, Telegram, X, VK, YouTube, etc.).

2. Ownership and financing.

– Owners (individual, holding, state);

– Financing: advertising, state subsidies, private investors;

– Connections with political/corporate structures;

– Belonging to media holdings.

3. Ideological and political orientation

– Political bias (far left, left, centrist, right, far right, state);

– Primary target audience (e.g. liberal, conservative, youth, professional community).

4. Reputation

– Credibility level: high, medium, low. This criterion can be determined based on the analysis of the number and type of errors (e.g. publishing false information, manipulative or clickbait headlines);

– Presence of propaganda/disinformation: how often the resource has been noticed in the distribution of fake news or propaganda materials.

5. Links to other resources

– Direct link. Financial, ideological or editorial links to other resources;

– Indirect link. Which media resources does this source most often refer to and, conversely, who refers to it;

– Involvement of experts. Determine who most often acts as an expert, under whose authorship the materials are published.

Classification of sources by degree of reliability.

This approach helps determine how thoroughly the information received should be checked and which of them can be used as reliable support.

  • Highly reliable sources

This category includes resources that generally adhere to journalistic and ethical standards, as well as official government bodies that provide primary information.

– Government bodies. Information published on official websites and in their social media accounts is primary and the most reliable. For example, official websites of governments and ministries are considered primary sources. This also includes information published by specific government officials on their official pages.

– Official accredited media. These include news agencies and publications that operate within the framework of the law and have received accreditation. They are required to comply with certain standards and can be held liable for publishing knowingly false information.

– Authoritative fact-checking organizations. In many countries, there are resources that specialize in checking information for accuracy. For example, in Russia the Lapsha Media project is engaged in refuting false information.

  • Low-credibility sources.

These resources cannot be used for fact-checking. They are either intentionally misleading or their content is fiction.

– Satirical publications. Some portals, such as The Onion, position themselves as parodies of news. All their publications are fiction and cannot be used to check the information for reliability. However, many resources subsequently copy the information and pass it off as reliable, which misleads users.

– Absurd sources of disinformation. This category includes resources that publish content based on scientifically disproven conspiracy theories (conspiracy theories). For example, information about the “flat Earth,” “moon conspiracy,” or “alien control of governments.”

Ultimately, a well-written media map solves several critically important problems for a fact-checker: it speeds up the verification process due to quick access to structured data, improves the quality of investigations due to the analysis of connections and reputation of sources, and, finally, makes it possible to recognize coordinated campaigns before they gain full force. This is more than a tool – it is the foundation for a professional and deep approach to fact-checking, turning disparate observations into a coherent system of media field analysis.