Editorial Policy

Every external article we analyze receives a Propaganda Score from 0-100. The score is based on:

• Loaded Language Detection — Identifying emotionally manipulative words and phrases designed to trigger rather than inform.
• Ownership & Funding Analysis — Mapping who owns the outlet, their corporate parent, major shareholders, and known political affiliations.
• Narrative Framing — Analyzing what the story emphasizes, what it omits, and how the framing serves specific interests.
• Source Diversity — Checking whether the article relies on a single perspective or includes multiple viewpoints.
• Who Benefits Analysis — Identifying which individuals, corporations, or political groups benefit from the story's framing.
• Missing Context — Flagging relevant information the original article omitted.

A score of 0 means no detectable propaganda techniques. A score of 100 would indicate extreme manipulation across all dimensions. Most mainstream outlet articles score between 20-60.

Our fact-checking process evaluates each story's major claims using verification and cross-referencing. For each claim, we assign one of three statuses:

• Verified — The claim is supported by multiple independent sources or public records.
• Unverified — The claim could not be independently confirmed but is not contradicted by available evidence.
• Disputed — The claim is contradicted by credible sources or contains factual errors.

Stories that fail fact-checking are not published. Stories with unverified claims are published with appropriate caveats.

We take factual accuracy seriously. If we publish an error:

• Factual errors will be corrected as soon as they are identified, with a visible correction note on the article.
• Significant corrections will be noted at the top of the article with the date of correction.
• We will not silently edit published articles. All substantive changes are documented.

To report an error, contact us at corrections@gen-us.space.

Gen Us is independently operated. We take zero money from political parties, PACs, lobby groups, or foreign governments. Our editors have no ties to AIPAC, no defense industry board seats, and no undisclosed relationships with any government — including those actively engaged in human rights violations.

We have no advertising relationships, sponsored content arrangements, or affiliate partnerships. Nobody calls us before publication. Nobody pulls funding if we publish something uncomfortable.

We apply the same methodology, the same standards, and the same scrutiny to every source — regardless of political leaning, country of origin, or corporate affiliation.