Bellingcat
Bellingcat operates through a Dutch charitable foundation and a U.S. 501(c)(3), with nonprofit board governance rather than equity ownership. It publishes annual accounts and a detailed funding policy.
Bellingcat discloses named grantmakers and in-kind corporate support, while noting that some donors request anonymity but are known to auditors. That limitation is part of the record.
From screen to controller
Do not trust the diagram.
Open the proof.
Primary means the company, regulator, court, filing, or outlet made the disclosure directly. Partial records show exactly which link is documented and which link is still unresolved.
Proves: Bellingcat identifies its legal entities, current funding mix, named supporters, anonymous audited donors and acceptance rules.
Does not prove: This record establishes the stated corporate or institutional fact. It does not establish editorial causation beyond that disclosure.
Proves: The audited accounts describe Stichting Bellingcat, board oversight and financial structure.
Does not prove: This record establishes the stated corporate or institutional fact. It does not establish editorial causation beyond that disclosure.
How the outlet earns
What else sits nearby
Bellingcat both publishes investigations and sells training in its methods.
What the records do not settle
These are research targets, not insinuations. A missing disclosure stays missing until a primary record answers it.
- 01Which parts of this ownership structure overlap with subjects the newsroom covers?
- 02What formal safeguards separate ownership and business operations from editorial decisions?
What Gen Us observed
This is a sample of analyzed stories, not a permanent rating of every article the outlet publishes.
Ownership is evidence of control structure, not proof of editorial causation.
To claim that an owner changed coverage, Gen Us requires separate evidence tied to a decision, communication, policy, or documented intervention. That distinction is the point of this database.