Why this exists
Journalists have a platform. The people they write about do not.
When a newspaper names you, its version reaches thousands of people in minutes. Yours reaches your family. That asymmetry is the whole reason this site exists.
The problem is not that outlets publish. It is that only one side gets a page.
A reporter can spend six months on a story and publish it under a masthead with an audience. The person named in it gets, at best, a sentence of “declined to comment”, or a reply buried on their own social media where nobody is looking. Both versions may be worth reading. Only one gets read.
What we do
We break an article into its individual factual claims. Next to each one we publish the reply of the person or company it names, in their own words, with the documents they provide. We link to the original article and quote a single sentence per claim. We never reproduce the article.
What we do not do
We do not decide who is right. We label whether a claim is documented, unproven, refuted by a document, or simply an opinion — and we show you the document. We never score an outlet out of ten, and we never say anyone is lying. That is a judgement, and it is not ours to make.
The rules that keep us honest
- Nobody pays to appear. Not the outlet, not the person replying, never.
- Replying is free for everyone, from a local restaurant to a bank.
- A published reply cannot be edited afterwards. It is sealed with a timestamp.
- Identity is verified before anything is published.
- When the outlet got it right, we say so. If the press never wins a single line, this is not a verification platform — it is a laundry.
- Anyone can report content on any case, and our own corrections are public.
Who is behind this
This platform was started by someone who had been on the wrong end of it — written about, without a place to answer. That is the honest origin, and hiding it would be its own kind of dishonesty. It also sets a rule we do not break: the founder replies here as an ordinary user, like anyone else, and never approves his own case.
The article everyone reads. The reply almost nobody publishes.