How it works

Most viral political posts mix a few checkable facts with a much bigger argument about values. We separate the two. Facts get rulings. Values get a fair hearing from every side.

How we pick posts

We look for posts that are spreading fast, making specific claims that can be checked, and that people across the spectrum are arguing about. We pick from every direction: a breakdown is a check on the claim, not on the people who shared it.

How verdicts work

Each claim gets one verdict, judged the way a normal reader would understand it. Before publishing, every verdict gets a symmetry test: would it be the same if the identical claim came from the other side?

• Checks outAccurate, with nothing important left out.
• Missing contextTechnically accurate, but leaves out something that changes the picture.
• MisleadingBuilt on real facts, but arranged to give a false impression.
• WrongContradicted by the best available evidence.
• UnsupportedNo reliable evidence either way yet.

There's no overall score for a post. A post can get one claim right and another wrong, and we'd rather show that than flatten it.

The real disagreement

After the facts, we name the question they can't settle, usually about fairness, freedom, safety or priorities. Each side gets its strongest case, in roughly equal space, citing its own best sources. The test: someone on each side should read their section and think, “yes, that's our argument, and it's put well.” We also note where the sides agree and what evidence would actually change minds.

Sources

Every factual claim that someone might dispute is cited. We prefer primary documents and official data over commentary. Every source is labeled by type, and advocacy groups and think tanks are named as such, so you know who is speaking:

• Primary document
• Data
• Research
• Advocacy / think tank
• Journalism

We never cite a link we haven't opened and read.

Who makes this, and how

Breakdowns are signed “View from the Gallery” because they're the publication's work, not one personality's. Right now that means one independent editor, with no party affiliation, no employer interest in these topics and no outside funding. We don't use a made-up name or persona, and we'll say so here if that ever changes.

Most of the legwork is done with AI tools, under rules we publish on this page. Here's how each breakdown is made:

1. Finding posts. AI tools scan public feeds and fact-checkers for viral posts with checkable claims. The editor picks one, keeping track of which side posts come from so neither gets picked on more.
2. Research and drafting. AI research assistants find primary sources, pull the raw data, and draft the piece, including the strongest case for each side of the disagreement.
3. Two independent checks. A separate AI reviewer, which never sees the research, opens every source, tests every verdict for symmetry and rates each side's case for fairness. Then a final audit recomputes every number from the raw data and checks the social posts against the article. They regularly catch mistakes in our own drafts.
4. The editor decides. The editor reads the sentences most likely to be wrong, with their sources, decides every verdict, and decides whether the piece runs at all.

Whoever or whatever made a mistake, it's ours, and we correct it in the open.

Corrections

If we get something wrong, we fix it on the page, add a dated note explaining what changed, and list it on the corrections page. We don't quietly edit verdicts. Spotted a mistake? Email editor@viewfromthegallery.com with a source.

What we don't do

• No ads, no affiliate links, no sponsored breakdowns.
• No mocking the people who post or share things.
• No tracking cookies. See the privacy page.