Our Methodology
How we verify claims, assess sources, and maintain rigorous standards for balanced political analysis.
Our Mission
PoliticalClaims.au exists to provide Australians with balanced, comprehensive analysis of political claims from across the political spectrum. We believe voters deserve access to verified facts, missing context, and critical perspectives that go beyond simple "true/false" determinations.
Our database currently contains over 1,000 analyzed claims spanning both Coalition and Labor governments, covering topics from economic policy to environmental regulations, healthcare spending to immigration.
Verification Process
Each claim undergoes a rigorous multi-step verification process:
Claim Identification
We identify specific, verifiable claims from political statements, press releases, parliamentary records, and media appearances.
Source Research
We gather evidence from official government sources, academic research, reputable news outlets, and expert analysis. Each claim requires at least 3-5 independent sources.
Factual Verification
We verify the core factual claims against official data, cross-referencing multiple sources to establish accuracy.
Context Analysis
We identify missing context that might change how the claim is understood, including historical precedent, comparative data, and alternative interpretations.
Critical Perspective
We present counterarguments and alternative viewpoints to ensure readers can form their own balanced conclusions.
Source Assessment
We evaluate sources using Media Bias/Fact Check ratings and our own credibility assessment. Sources are categorized by:
High Credibility
- • Government official records (Hansard, Budget papers)
- • Australian National Audit Office
- • Peer-reviewed academic research
- • ABC News, SBS News
Medium Credibility
- • Major newspapers (SMH, The Australian, Guardian AU)
- • Think tanks with disclosed methodology
- • Industry reports from credible bodies
Lower Credibility
- • Partisan news sources (acknowledged bias)
- • Commentary and opinion pieces
- • Single-source reports
Context Only
- • Social media posts
- • Anonymous sources
- • Unverified claims from parties
Verdict Scale
The claim is accurate and supported by evidence. Any minor inaccuracies do not materially affect the overall truthfulness.
The claim contains accurate elements but omits important context, exaggerates certain aspects, or conflates separate issues. Also used for "Partially True" and "True but Misleading."
The claim uses accurate data points to create a false impression, cherry-picks evidence, or presents facts out of context in a way that distorts the overall picture.
The claim is factually incorrect, contradicted by evidence, or based on demonstrably false premises.
Rating System
In addition to categorical verdicts, each claim receives a numerical rating from 0-10 based on:
- Factual accuracy (40%) - Are the core facts correct?
- Context completeness (30%) - Is important context included?
- Framing fairness (20%) - Is the claim presented in a balanced way?
- Source quality (10%) - Are original sources reliable?
Bias & Balance
We strive for political neutrality by:
- Analyzing claims from both major parties and independents
- Using consistent methodology regardless of political affiliation
- Presenting counterarguments and alternative perspectives
- Disclosing source biases when relevant
- Comparing similar claims across parties (e.g., "Labor comparison" sections)
AI-Assisted Analysis
Analysis is generated using AI (Claude) to ensure consistency and scalability. All claims are cross-referenced against official sources. AI limitations are acknowledged in our analysis where relevant.
Contact
We welcome feedback, corrections, and suggestions for claims to analyze.
Email: john@politicalclaims.au
GitHub: github.com/politicalclaims-au
Privacy Policy
This website does not collect personal data, use tracking cookies, or share information with third parties. Analytics (if any) are privacy-respecting and aggregated.