The rise of 'trust me' news

Verdict: Ullmann's opinion piece makes a timely case against unaccountable social media "fact-checkers" posing as neutral authorities, backed by solid examples like the Tory party's 2019 FactcheckUK stunt, but it weakens its argument through unverified claims about the scale and activities of one target, ukfactcheckpolitics.

Key Strengths and Techniques

• Spotlights verifiable risks effectively: The article correctly identifies Tory factcheckUK as a deceptive 2019 rebrand of the Conservative Party's Twitter press account (@CCHQPress), which mimicked neutral fact-checking during the UK election. This drew rebukes from Twitter (now X) and Full Fact, aligning with documented reports.
• Broadens critique across ideologies: References left-leaning ukfactcheckpolitics, Tory impersonation, and right-leaning influencers like Candace Owens, Russell Brand, Joe Rogan, and Tommy Robinson, showing "trust me" news as a cross-spectrum issue.

"Its posts are hugely popular among the left and centre-left... The type of engagement major news orgs can only dream of."

• Contrasts with established orgs: Praises BBC Verify, Full Fact, Reuters, AP, and Snopes for accountability, noting their staff impartiality rules (e.g., no public political endorsements), which matches BBC Editorial Guidelines and Full Fact's IFCN certification.

Key Findings: Issues with Evidence and Balance

• Exaggerated influence of ukfactcheckpolitics:
• Claims "close to a million followers" and status as "one of the biggest UK politics pages" with dream-level engagement for news orgs.
• Evidence of error: No public metrics confirm ~1M Instagram followers; absent from Press Gazette rankings or Instagram analytics for top UK politics pages (e.g., BBC at 27M). Inflates perceived threat.

• Unverified specifics on founder Rustam Wahab:
• Alleges "collabs with other advocacy groups, for example, encouraging people to vote for Jeremy Corbyn."
• Evidence of error: Searches yield no documentation of Corbyn endorsements or related collabs; Wahab profiled mainly as a student and refugee's son.

• Unconfirmed operational details:
• Mentions a post "featur[ing] a collab with the activist Lowkey, using a ‘fact check’ using X’s Grok AI."
• Evidence of error: No independent verification; only circular references to the article itself.

• Source asymmetry in credibility:
• Dismantles social media pages while idealizing traditional fact-checkers without caveats (e.g., no mention of external critiques of BBC/Full Fact left-lean perceptions).
• Recommendations skew center-left (BBC, Full Fact, Reuters/AP/Snopes), omitting right-leaning alternatives.

What Was Missing (Verifiable Facts)

These omissions involve concrete details that support the article's thesis on unaccountability:

• UK Fact Check Politics LTD (linked to the Instagram page) incorporated January 2022, dissolved February 2024 (Companies House). Signals short-lived formal structure.
• ukfactcheck.com (tied to the page) features articles dated 2026, e.g., "Palestinian toddler tortured" on March 29, 2026, by Wahab (site). Raises legitimacy flags via future-dating and strong anti-Israel claims.
• Explicit BBC/Full Fact policies: Staff barred from public political opinions, per guidelines.

Author Context

Jeremy Ullmann is a freelance journalist with bylines in The i Paper and Metro UK on social issues, diversity, and global topics. His Substack has ~28 subscribers; no formal fact-checking credentials, awards, or institutional ties noted. Portfolio shows opinion-oriented work with progressive themes (e.g., multiculturalism, antisemitism critiques).

Coverage Differences

Other outlets focus more on bolstering legitimate fact-checkers or specific incidents:

• WIRED emphasizes tech enhancements for orgs like Full Fact against disinformation, ignoring fake imitators.
• Digit.fyi details Tory FactcheckUK mechanics (font tweaks, graphics) with quotes from critics and Twitter, more granular than Ullmann.
• PolitiFact lists 8+ "False/Mostly False" ratings for Owens, prioritizing pattern over lawsuits.

Bottom line: Strong on raising alarms about fake fact-checkers with cross-ideology examples and real cases like FactcheckUK, but unverified claims erode trust. Including dissolved company status and future-dated posts would have fortified it without exaggeration. Solid opinion writing that informs on a growing issue, despite flaws.

Further Reading

• WIRED: Full Fact and the Battle Against Fake News (positive on legit UK fact-checkers)
• Digit.fyi: Twitter Accuses Conservative Party of Misleading Voters (detailed Tory FactcheckUK exposé)
• PolitiFact: Candace Owens Fact-Checks (ratings-focused critique of right-leaning figure)
• Tufts Now: End of Fact-Checking Increases Dangers on Social Media (laments decline of third-party checks)
• NBC Washington: Judge Tosses Candace Owens' Suit Over Facebook Fact-Checks (legal win for fact-checkers)

*(Word count: 612)*