Skip to content
nadu.lk
News

News sources · assessed 11 October 2026

How we rate our sources

Every outlet nadu.lk collects from is scored 1–5 on three things: reliability — its reputation for accurate, quality journalism; corrections — whether it owns up to and fixes mistakes; and prestige — its standing, history and awards. The overall score weights reliability twice as much as either of the others.

Scores rest on published evidence, cited below each outlet: independent raters (Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media, NewsGuard, Reuters Institute trust data) where they cover an outlet, and otherwise election-observer reports, Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka records, media-monitoring studies and court or regulator findings. Where there is little evidence either way, an outlet gets the middle score and low confidence — a lack of evidence is not a finding against it. Ownership, including state ownership, is recorded but is not by itself counted against an outlet.

These are nadu.lk's assessments against the stated criteria, not facts about any outlet, and they will be reviewed. They are also used, modestly, in how nadu.lk works: reports from better-rated outlets count for more in the outlook, headline a story first, rank a story slightly higher, and come first when nadu.lk writes an update. Every story still links to every outlet that covered it.

Outlets: right of reply. If you run or represent an outlet listed here and think a score or a piece of evidence is wrong or out of date, ask for a review — name the outlet and send what you would like us to consider. We reply within 14 days, re-assess against the same published criteria, and record any change in the evidence below. Readers can use the same form to report an error.

Reliability · 50% of overall

  1. 5Consistently rated highly factual by independent raters; errors rare and corrected.
  2. 4Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.
  3. 3Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.
  4. 2Repeated documented false or misleading reporting, or a propaganda role.
  5. 1Frequent fabrication.

Corrections · 25% of overall

  1. 5Public corrections policy, visibly labelled corrections, and an independent complaints body or ombudsman.
  2. 4A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.
  3. 3Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.
  4. 2No policy found and corrections rarely seen.
  5. 1Documented refusals to correct.

Prestige · 25% of overall

  1. 5Global outlet of record with top international awards.
  2. 4Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.
  3. 3Established national or specialist outlet.
  4. 2Niche, young or regional.
  5. 1Obscure.

Sri Lankan outlets (19)

Daily Mirrorsince 1999ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence4.0High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

EU observers found its 2019 election coverage balanced and praised its analytical features. Verité Ethics Eye has cited it several times as an accurate counter-example, but it also documented unsourced reporting (Mar 2018) and a false 'Political Gossip' item whose follow-up apology was itself inaccurate (May 2019). The paper is generally factual with occasional documented errors.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

It takes part in the PCCSL process, which implements the Editors' Guild Code of Professional Practice (including a corrections clause). It publishes PCCSL's 'Rights of Readers' notice and had the most PCCSL-tracked direct corrections, clarifications or replies of any private paper in 2023 (12). I found no outlet-specific corrections page, and in 2019 Ethics Eye documented an inadequate correction.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

A leading English daily published since 1999 by the largest newspaper group. It has won many Editors' Guild/SLPI Journalism Awards for Excellence (Scoop of the Year 2012, Young Reporter, cartoonist, photographer, Best Designed News Website 2017). Its print readership share is small (0.55% in 2017), but it is a reference English outlet.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. No MBFC/NewsGuard/Ad Fontes rating exists; MBFC's 'Daily Mirror' page is the UK tabloid and must not be used. The 1999 founding year comes from the Media Ownership Monitor (the current Daily Mirror relaunch); an earlier paper used the same title. The awards list is from Wikipedia and should be spot-checked.

Sunday Timessince 1987ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence4.0High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

EU observers found its 2024 election coverage fairly equal between frontrunners and mostly neutral in tone. It has repeatedly won Scoop of the Year and investigative-journalism awards. Ethics Eye documented lapses in late 2018 (an unverified book quote and a wrong constitutional article), and it ran a doctored page-1 photo in 2021, which it publicly retracted.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

It publishes visibly labelled 'Correction'/'Clarification' items, including a front-page photo apology in 2021. It also carries the PCCSL 'Rights of Readers' notice and takes part in the PCCSL/Editors' Guild code process. I found no standalone online corrections-policy page.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

A leading English weekly since 1987 and among the most-decorated outlets in the Editors' Guild/SLPI awards: Best Designed Newspaper about ten times, Journalist of the Year (Iqbal Athas 1998, Kumudini Hettiarachchi 2003), and repeated Scoop and Investigative awards.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. Owned by Wijeya Newspapers (Wijewardene family, related to Ranil Wickremesinghe). The EU 2019 annex shows 42.5% Rajapaksa / 40.1% Premadasa space, but the narrative text did not characterise its tone.

Daily FTsince 2009ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.8High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

It is a specialist business daily with a strong award record and is cited as an example of fuller reporting in some Ethics Eye comparisons. Ethics Eye flagged Daily FT articles for misleading headlines, missing sources or inaccuracies in three months of 2018. Coverage is thin after 2018, and it was not in the EU election-monitoring samples.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

It takes part in the PCCSL process under the Editors' Guild code, carries the 'Rights of Readers' notice, and had 5 PCCSL-tracked direct corrections, clarifications or replies in 2023. I found no outlet-specific corrections policy page.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

It is a young (2009), niche business daily with a small print readership (0.08% in 2017). It is nonetheless the most frequent winner of the Editors' Guild Business Journalist award, with Journalist of the Year 2013 (Dharisha Bastians) and design awards in 2022.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. The founding date is self-reported by ft.lk. Wikipedia's awards list credits a 2009 business award to Daily FT, which is inconsistent with a November 2009 launch, so treat it as unverified. Reliability evidence after 2018 is thin.

Daily Newssince 1918ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.3Moderate

Independent ratings

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

Long-established paper of record with no documented pattern of fabrication found, but it is a state-controlled title whose coverage independent monitors describe as regularly aligned with the government of the day, and whose front page was changed by pro-Rajapaksa loyalists during the 2018 constitutional crisis. Verite Research's Ethics Eye flagged it in early 2018 for misleading headlines / unsourced / inaccurate reporting.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

No public corrections policy found on dailynews.lk, but as a print title it falls under the Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka (PCCSL) and the Editors' Guild code, and the PCCSL annual report records Daily News resolving 12 complaints directly via clarification/correction/right of reply. It is not listed among papers that regularly print the PCCSL 'Rights of Readers' notice.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded 1918, Sri Lanka's oldest major English daily, described by MOM as the most-read English daily (older data); staff and website have won Editors' Guild/SLPI Journalism Awards for Excellence.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. No MBFC/Ad Fontes/NewsGuard rating found (guessed MBFC slug returned 404). Ethics Eye findings are 2018-era; no recent monitoring found. Could not find specific 2024-2026 evidence of coverage slant under the NPP government beyond SMM's general characterisation. State ownership itself is recorded as a fact; the score reflects documented editorial capture episodes plus monitoring findings, not ownership alone.

Dinaminasince 1909ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.3Moderate

Independent ratings

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

Ethics Eye flagged Dinamina in 2018 for misleading headlines/inaccurate reports and for irrelevantly and negatively highlighting ethnicity, but in 2019 cited it as reporting a story accurately where a rival did not. Its editorial control has repeatedly followed government changes (2018 takeover; editor removals).

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Covered by PCCSL process (complaints against Dinamina are recorded by PCCSL); no public corrections policy or labelled corrections found. A 2008 case where the Sri Lanka Press Institute sought a correction that had not been published at time of reporting is noted but is not a confirmed final refusal.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded 1909, one of the oldest Sinhala dailies, national circulation, staff and site have won Journalism Awards for Excellence.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. The 2008 SLPI Sunday Times URL came from search results (summarised, not opened directly). Ethics Eye data is 2018-2019 only.

Lankadeepasince 1986ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.3Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

EU observers found its 2019 and 2024 election coverage roughly balanced and mostly neutral, with regular analytical features. Verité Ethics Eye has nevertheless documented many lapses: a distorted quote of the New Zealand PM (2021), a misleading Covid-cremation editorial (2020), a misattributed crowd photo (2021), inaccurate items in 2018 and 2022, and unnecessary ethnic identification of suspects. PCCSL recorded 6 code violations in 2021.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

It does publish corrections and apologies: a crowd photo was corrected and apologised for the next day (2021), and clarifications were run in 2022, though without equal prominence or an apology. It takes part in PCCSL (2 direct corrections in 2023) but is not listed among Wijeya titles carrying the 'Rights of Readers' notice, and I found no public policy.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

It has the largest newspaper readership in the country: Irida Lankadeepa had 27.15% and the combined titles 32.41% (2017). The weekly dates from 1986 and the daily from 1991. Its awards include Journalist of the Year (Sinhala) 2000/2001, Scoop of the Year 2003 and 2018, and Best Designed Newspaper 2003.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. MOM notes that the weekly's chief editor Ariyananda Dombagahawatta's ties to Mahinda Rajapaksa have been questioned in press reports. Ethics Eye monitors Sinhala papers far more heavily than English ones, so the lapse count partly reflects sampling, which is part of why this is a 3 and not a 2.

Sunday Observersince 1928ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.3Moderate

Independent ratings

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No outlet-specific documented false stories found, but it is a Lake House title subject to the same documented state capture (board/chair appointed by government, coverage aligned with the government in office). It has also carried critical voices, e.g. a 2024 interview calling state media independence a 'litmus test' for the new government. Evidence specific to this title is thin.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Print title covered by the PCCSL / Editors' Guild code process; no public corrections policy or visibly labelled corrections found. Not listed among papers regularly printing the PCCSL 'Rights of Readers' notice.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Traces to The Observer of 1834 (present format 1928); large weekly circulation; staff have won national journalism awards.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. Reliability evidence is mostly group-level (ANCL), not title-specific. Founding year given as 1928 (present format); lineage to 1834.

The Islandsince 1981ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.3Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

Evidence is mixed and thin. Ethics Eye flagged The Island for misleading headlines, unsourced reporting and inaccurate information (Mar 2018) and derogatory disability language (2022), but cited it as reporting correctly where Lankadeepa distorted (2021). PCCSL logged only 1 code violation in 2021. I found no independent election-monitoring verdict on its slant. The nationalist characterisations seen were opinion pieces and were not used.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

It carries the PCCSL 'Rights of Readers' notice and had 8 PCCSL-tracked direct corrections, clarifications or replies in 2023, plus 1 for the Sunday Island. That is the second-highest among private papers, so corrections do get published. I found no outlet-specific corrections policy page.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

A long-established English national daily (1981) from Upali Newspapers. Its Editors' Guild award record is moderate: Investigative Journalist 2008, several environmental-reporting and cartoonist awards, and Photographer of the Year 2016. It sits on the 3/4 border, held at 3 for lack of top-category awards and readership data.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. No MOM outlet page was retrievable for The Island or Divaina (404), and Upali Newspapers' owners' political ties were not established from MOM. The Island was not in the EU 2019 or 2024 print monitoring samples.

Colombo Telegraphsince 2011ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.0Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

Index on Censorship credits it with documented investigative scoops (e.g. leaked draft COPE report on the Central Bank bond scam), and it was repeatedly blocked by governments. But ownership/funding are undisclosed, and critics (e.g. Groundviews) have accused it of publishing unsubstantiated allegations; no independent accuracy rating exists.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Publishes a corrections policy and right of reply on its About page, but no visibly labelled corrections were found and there is no independent complaints body (online-only).

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Influential agenda-setting investigative site since 2011 recognised by international press-freedom groups, but no journalism awards found and its standing is contested.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. Much of the site is opinion/columns, often pseudonymous; news vs opinion should be distinguished. IPI and Groundviews URLs were seen in search results, not opened.

EconomyNextReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.0Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No documented false or misleading reporting found in fact-checker or monitor sources, but no independent rating exists either, so it takes the default for thin evidence (3). Its visibly labelled corrections count under corrections.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Visibly labelled corrections exist, but no published corrections/ethics policy found and as an online-only outlet it is outside PCCSL.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Established national business/economic news outlet; no founding year, awards or audience data found.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Founding year not found (not on About page). A directory described its orientation as classical-liberal, but that source was a search snippet, not verified. Reliability 4 is a judgement from lack of negative findings + correction labelling; drop to 3 if strict 'thin evidence = 3' is applied.

Tamil Guardiansince 1998ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.0Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No fact-checker findings of false reporting were found, and RSF has defended its correspondents against harassment on 'entirely spurious grounds'. It is an explicitly advocacy-oriented diaspora outlet (supports Tamil Eelam, commemorates LTTE cadres), which visibly shapes selection and framing; a 2000 claim that it was an LTTE front was never substantiated.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Some visibly labelled corrections exist (e.g. revised age in a 2012 article), but no public corrections/ethics policy or complaints body was found.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Long-running (1998) diaspora outlet widely referenced on Tamil issues, with correspondents recognised by RSF; no journalism awards found. Could be seen as niche (2).

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. About page URL guessed (/about-us) returned 404; publisher/editor not identified. Freedom House item was seen via Tamil Guardian's own report, not the Freedom House original. RSF 2022 URL seen in search results, not opened.

TamilmirrorReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.0Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

Evidence is thin. The EU 2019 observers found tamilmirror.lk, 'in particular', gave more favourable coverage to Premadasa and was mostly critical of Rajapaksa, which is a visible partisan slant in that election. PCCSL logged 1 code violation in 2021. I found no documented fabrication or fact-check findings against it.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

It carries the PCCSL 'Rights of Readers' notice and is within the PCCSL/Editors' Guild code system. I found no corrections policy page and no visible labelled corrections in this research.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

A national Tamil-language outlet in the Wijeya group, now online-only. Its print readership was small (0.17% in 2017), and its Editors' Guild awards are in the Tamil categories (cartoonist 2014-2018, business journalist 2017-2018, columnist 2015/2017).

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Founding year not found. The EU 2019 finding is the only independent content assessment located. A Tamil-language search (factcheck/ethics reports in Tamil) was not done, so it could add evidence.

Thinakaransince 1932ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.0Moderate

Independent ratings

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No documented false stories or monitoring findings specific to Thinakaran were found (Ethics Eye covers mainly the Sinhala press). Score reflects documented group-level state capture of ANCL; evidence is thin.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Print title within PCCSL jurisdiction; no public corrections policy, labelled corrections or Thinakaran-specific PCCSL data found.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Established 1932 state Tamil daily with national reach and some national awards, but smaller than the leading Tamil daily and evidence of standing is limited.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Very little title-specific evidence. Prestige could reasonably be 4 given age and awards; kept at 3 because no readership-rank data was found.

Ada Deranasince 2005ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence2.8Low

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

MBFC rates it Mixed factually for one-sided, pro-government framing (no failed fact checks listed). EU election observers found TV Derana's 2019 coverage one-sided in favour of Gotabaya Rajapaksa, with the chairman pictured campaigning with him, and in 2024 it gave its own owner-candidate Dilith Jayaweera about as much airtime as the frontrunners. No documented fabrication was found, so this is partisan slant visibly shaping selection rather than false reporting.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

The About page sets out no editorial, corrections or complaints policy, and I found no documented on-air or online corrections. Broadcasters fall outside the newspaper-only Press Complaints Commission of Sri Lanka (PCCSL), which forwards TV complaints to 'concerned authorities'. This is an absence of evidence, so confidence is low.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

TV Derana (2005) was the most-watched channel in 2017 at 19.5% audience share, and Ada Derana repeatedly won the SLIM People's 'News Provider of the Year' award. Those awards are popularity polls, and I found no Editors' Guild/SLPI journalism awards, so it rates as an established national outlet rather than one with major journalism honours.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. Founded = TV Derana launch (2005); adaderana.lk launch year not found (SMS news service by late 2007). MBFC is the only independent rating found for any outlet in this batch. The People's Awards are consumer-popularity surveys, not journalism-quality awards. All findings come from Ada Derana's own pages, which did not show a corrections policy, so absence is not proof.

LBOsince 1998ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence2.8Low

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No documented false reporting or monitoring findings found; no independent ratings. Evidence is thin either way.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

No corrections policy or named editor on the About page; no labelled corrections found; online-only, outside PCCSL.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

One of Sri Lanka's earliest online business news sites (1998), described as one of the most popular English business news sites; no awards found.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. No ownership-change, controversy or award evidence found. The Wikipedia popularity claim is weakly sourced.

NewswireReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence2.8Low

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No fact-check found against Newswire's own reporting; fact-checks found concern false claims about it (AFP 2021) and a fake Newswire-branded newscard (Newschecker). Independent assessment is otherwise absent, so evidence is thin.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

No corrections policy found (only a feedback email); no Newswire-issued labelled corrections surfaced in site search; online-only so outside PCCSL.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Widely read national online news brand led by a well-known former BBC journalist, but founding year, audience data and awards not found.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Ada Derana item seen in search results only (fetch not attempted). Founding year unknown; about page shows a 2020-08-06 date that is not labelled as founding. Partisan claims about Ameen (2020 Ranjan Ramanayake recording) exist but no independent bias analysis was found; not used in scoring.

SL MirrorReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence2.5Low

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

No fact-checks or monitoring findings against the site were found. It was blocked in 2011 (government said sites 'maligned' officials) and its office was raided in 2012 under a repealed criminal-defamation provision; CPJ/RSF treated these as press-freedom violations, not findings of falsehood. Evidence on accuracy is thin.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

No corrections policy or labelled corrections found on the current About page; an archived About page reportedly claimed adherence to the Editors' Guild code incl. right of reply, but that page could not be opened. Online-only, outside PCCSL.

Prestige2

Niche, young or regional.

Small proprietor-run online outlet (circa 2010-2011) with no awards or audience data found.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Founding year unverified (one low-quality source said Nov 2010; site existed by Nov 2011 per FT). Archived About page (archive2.srilankamirror.com) failed DNS, so the Editors' Guild code claim is unverified.

Divainasince 1981ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence2.3Low

Reliability2

Repeated documented false or misleading reporting, or a propaganda role.

In May 2019 Divaina ran the front-page claim that a Muslim doctor secretly sterilised 4,000 Sinhala Buddhist women, on unnamed sources. The CID later told court the allegations were not proven, and an expert medical committee found no evidence. It also topped PCCSL's 2021 code-violation count (20) and is repeatedly flagged by Ethics Eye for misleading/unsourced reporting and for needlessly highlighting ethnicity.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

It complies with the PCCSL process but does not publish the 'Rights of Readers' notice, and PCCSL recorded only 1 direct correction in 2023. Ethics Eye documented cases (2018, 2022) where it did not apologise or publish the affected parties' clarifications. Those are failures to correct rather than explicit stated refusals, so it scores 2, not 1.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

A long-established Sinhala national daily (1981, Upali Newspapers). It has won Editors' Guild awards, including Journalist of the Year (Sinhala) 2006 and columnist, sports, environmental, business and photography awards. That makes it an established national outlet, though no readership leadership data was found.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. The Dr Shafi story is the single most consequential documented false/unsubstantiated report found in this batch. Divaina's editor said it was based on police and hospital sources, and a police B report pre-dated the article (Sunday Observer), so the police role is also contested. I did not establish whether Divaina ever retracted it. Wikipedia describes a Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist editorial stance.

Hiru Newssince 2012ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence2.3Low

Reliability2

Repeated documented false or misleading reporting, or a propaganda role.

EU observers found in 2019 that Hiru TV 'regularly distorted reports', editing opposition speeches to look empty or comical, with 61% overwhelmingly positive coverage for Rajapaksa. In 2024 it was 'the most unbalanced broadcaster', this time for Premadasa, and ignored Election Commission warnings. Sri Lanka Cricket called a 2023 Hiru report 'totally false, fabricated', and in 2026 Hiru had to correct large calculation errors in a report on a minister's assets.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

No public corrections policy was found, and broadcasters are outside PCCSL. Corrections are rarely documented: an apology for an erroneous 2007 radio report and the 2026 asset-figure correction, the latter aired while denying liability. No correction of the 2023 cricket story was found.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

A major national broadcaster with an 18.1% audience share, one of the three commercial media houses dominating TV audiences in 2024. It is relatively young (Hiru TV under ABC from 2012), and its recognition comes from popularity awards (SLIM-Nielsen People's Awards) rather than journalism awards.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. The 2012 founding year is from MOM's ABC general information (2018 snapshot); ABC's radio stations are older. Hiru's partisan direction flipped between elections (pro-Rajapaksa 2019, pro-Premadasa 2024), so this is a pattern of owner-driven slant, not alignment with one party.

International outlets (9)

BBCsince 1922ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigehigh confidence4.5Very high

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

Independent raters place it among the most reliable outlets (Ad Fontes 44.63, MBFC High credibility) and it is the most trusted UK news brand. However, MBFC rates it only 'Mostly Factual', and 2025 brought serious documented lapses: the Panorama Trump-speech edit that the BBC chair called an 'error of judgment', which led to the resignations of the Director-General and News CEO, and an Ofcom finding that a Gaza documentary misled viewers.

Corrections5

Public corrections policy, visibly labelled corrections, and an independent complaints body or ombudsman.

The BBC runs a public corrections and clarifications page and an internal Executive Complaints Unit, and Ofcom acts as external regulator, including for BBC online material. The 2025 Prescott memo criticised how complaints were handled, and Board oversight of complaints was strengthened in December 2025.

Prestige5

Global outlet of record with top international awards.

The BBC was founded in 1922 and is a global public broadcaster of record. It has won Peabody Awards and International Emmys for news, and it won six RTS Television Journalism Awards in 2025.

High confidence — several independent sources agree. Could not fetch bbc.co.uk directly (blocked), so the corrections page is evidenced through third-party reports. The 59% DNR 2026 figure comes from a secondary summary. The Trump lawsuit is pending, and the damages claimed are not an established liability.

ProPublicasince 2007ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigehigh confidence4.5Very high

Reliability5

Consistently rated highly factual by independent raters; errors rare and corrected.

MBFC rates it High factual with no failed fact checks, and Ad Fontes scores it 47.17. Its best-known documented error is the 2017 Gina Haspel black-site report, which ProPublica publicly corrected in March 2018. Disputes over its COMPAS and Surgeon Scorecard methods were challenges to its methodology, not findings of false reporting.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

ProPublica keeps a public corrections page with dated, labelled corrections linked to each story. Its Code of Ethics says mistakes must be corrected 'fully, quickly and ungrudgingly'. It has no independent ombudsman or press-council membership, so it did not get a 5.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded in 2007, it is a young but leading US investigative newsroom. It states nine Pulitzer Prizes, including the first awarded to an online news source (2010), plus six Peabodys, 10 Emmys and 18 Polk Awards. It is national rather than a global outlet of record.

High confidence — several independent sources agree. pulitzer.org returned 403, so the Pulitzer list comes from Wikipedia and ProPublica's own awards page. No NewsGuard or Reuters Institute brand data found. Funding critiques and the 2021 IRS leak concern sourcing and governance; no finding of false reporting followed, so they are not counted against reliability.

Sky Newssince 1989ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence4.5Very high

Independent ratings

Reliability5

Consistently rated highly factual by independent raters; errors rare and corrected.

MBFC rates Sky News Least Biased with HIGH factual reporting and lists only one failed fact check, a poll judged flawed. Ad Fontes rates it 41.77, Middle bias. As an Ofcom-licensed broadcaster it is bound by due-impartiality and accuracy rules. A Sky witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry said Ofcom found it in breach only twice across about 500 complaint items from 2005 to about 2011.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

Sky News is regulated by Ofcom, which assesses complaints against the Broadcasting Code (including accuracy and due impartiality) and publishes decisions, so an independent complaints body applies. Sky's own corrections policy page could not be fetched (news.sky.com blocks automated access), so 5 was not given.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded in 1989, it is a leading UK national news broadcaster with multiple BAFTAs (first in 2002 for 9/11 coverage) and RTS News Channel of the Year nine years running through 2026. It is international in reach but a tier below the global outlets of record.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. No Ofcom breach findings for 2020–2026 were verified either way; Ofcom pages returned 403. An Ofcom item on the 2019 'Brexit Election' strapline exists, but I could not confirm its outcome. The '9 years in a row' RTS claim comes from search summaries, not a page I opened.

The Hindusince 1878ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence4.3High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

MBFC rates it High credibility and Mostly Factual, with two failed fact checks (a filovirus study wrongly linked to coronavirus, and a misleading quote). That fits 'generally factual, occasional documented errors'. No Ad Fontes or NewsGuard rating was found.

Corrections5

Public corrections policy, visibly labelled corrections, and an independent complaints body or ombudsman.

The Hindu was the first Indian newspaper to appoint a Readers' Editor (ombudsman, set up 2006/announced Jan 2007), who works independently of the editor and oversees daily corrections and clarifications. That counts as a public accountability mechanism with visibly labelled corrections.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded in 1878, The Hindu is one of India's leading national newspapers. Its journalists have won top Indian honours, including the Ramnath Goenka Journalist of the Year (P. Sainath) and an investigative reporting award.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. Sources disagree on when the Readers' Editor started (2006 vs January 2007). I did not open a current Hindu corrections-policy page directly. I did not verify Press Council of India jurisdiction specifics, which apply to all Indian print newspapers.

France 24since 2006ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence4.0High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

MBFC rates it High factual with no failed fact checks, it reports a NewsGuard 100/100, and its parent holds JTI certification. It is borderline 5. Documented lapses include an apology to Morocco's foreign minister for airing a fake social-media post attributed to him. Its mission openly gives priority to a French perspective, and some foreign governments (Mali, 2022) have accused it of false reporting, which it rejected.

Corrections4

A corrections policy or complaints-body code, and visible corrections.

France 24 has a public on-air apology on record. JTI certification (100%, renewed 2025) and the NewsGuard criteria, which include correcting errors, point to formal accountability policies, and its parent is overseen by the regulator Arcom. I could not confirm a France Médias Monde ombudsman (médiateur) or a dedicated corrections page.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded in 2006, France 24 is a major international news channel. Its awards include the Bayeux-Calvados war correspondents TV prize (2025 for 'Inside Assad's terror machine'; 2012 for Libya), a top prize in war reporting. It is younger than the global outlets of record.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. The NewsGuard score comes from the outlet's own press release. The year of the Bourita apology is unconfirmed (snippet says Monday 23 February, which would fit 2026). Beware imposter domains (france24-tv.com, FR24 News), which MBFC rates poorly.

Dawnsince 1941ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.8High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

MBFC rates it Mostly Factual with no failed fact checks. Medium credibility partly reflects that it often does not link sources. It is widely described as Pakistan's newspaper of record and has faced government advertising boycotts over its reporting, which press-freedom groups condemned. A Nov 2025 incident in which an AI editing prompt was printed was a process lapse rather than false reporting.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

The editor has issued documented corrections and apologies (2014 'correction and regret', the 2019 correction, the 2025 AI-prompt apology), and Dawn publishes an AI policy. I found no general public corrections policy, readers' editor or independent complaints-body membership.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1941, Dawn is Pakistan's largest English-language newspaper and is widely considered its newspaper of record. I found no evidence of major international journalism awards.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. No Ad Fontes, NewsGuard or DNR brand data found (DNR Pakistan country page 404). Awards not verified. The 'Dawn Leaks' 2016 controversy was a government-military dispute over sourcing; I found no evidence that the report was false, so it is not counted against reliability.

DWsince 1953ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigemedium confidence3.8High

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

MBFC rates it High factual with no failed fact checks. State Media Monitor classes it as independent but state-funded, with editorial independence set out in the Deutsche-Welle-Gesetz. A 2021-22 external review found antisemitic statements by some Arabic-service staff and partners, leading to dismissals; this was a lapse in that language service and is not proof of false reporting.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

The fact-check unit was IFCN-assessed, and the IFCN code requires an open corrections policy. DW has partially revised a disputed fact check (Dec 2025) and removed an erroneous article with an explanation. I could not find DW's own published corrections page or details of its Broadcasting Council complaints process.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Founded in 1953, DW is Germany's international public broadcaster, serving roughly 30+ languages. The awards I found are modest (New York Festivals medals, German Business Film Award); I found no Peabody or International Emmy.

Medium confidence — some independent evidence, with gaps. Ad Fontes page not found. Award evidence is thin. The corrections score could be 4 if DW publishes a corrections policy on dw.com; I could not confirm one.

TechCrunchsince 2005ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.5Moderate

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

Both independent raters rate TechCrunch highly: MBFC gives it HIGH factual reporting with no failed fact checks, and its Ad Fontes score of 45.30 is the highest in this group. The track record is thin, though: no NewsGuard or Reuters Institute data was found, and it is a startup/tech trade outlet with historical conflict-of-interest controversies (Arrington-era CrunchFund, 2011). So a moderate 4 rather than 5.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

No current published corrections policy was found (techcrunch.com/editorial-standards returned 404). Older posts show corrections being made, and a writer was publicly fired and his posts removed after an ethics breach. It carries an affiliate-link disclosure.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Founded in 2005, it is a well-known specialist tech outlet, owned in turn by AOL, Verizon and Yahoo, and sold to Regent in 2025. No major journalism awards (Pulitzer, Peabody, Loeb) were found, so 'established specialist outlet' (3) rather than 4.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Evidence is thin beyond MBFC and Ad Fontes. No NewsGuard or Reuters Institute data. A corrections policy may exist on the site under a URL I did not find. Not finding major awards does not prove there are none.

Democracy Now!since 1996ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.0Moderate

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

The raters split. MBFC gives it High factual reporting and a clean fact-check record, but rates it Left because story selection 'consistently favors the left'. Ad Fontes puts its website at 31.68, 'Mixed Reliability/Opinion', Strong Left. No documented false reporting was found, so this is a strong slant shaping coverage, not repeated falsehood.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

No public corrections policy or editorial standards statement was found on its About page, and no labelled corrections were found, but our search was limited. The only sign is a 'Story idea or correction' option on its contact form. With little evidence either way, it gets the middle score at low confidence.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

Founded in 1996 at WBAI and now carried by about 1,400 radio and TV stations, it is an established national independent news programme. Its awards are limited: a George Polk Award for the 1998 documentary 'Drilling and Killing', the first Izzy Award (2009, to Amy Goodman), and a Gracie Award. No Peabody or Pulitzer was found.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. democracynow.org/corrections returned 404. Search engines returned a bot check or no results, so the lack of visible corrections partly reflects limited search; re-check before raising or lowering the corrections score. Arrests of its staff concerned newsgathering, not accuracy, and are not counted. No NewsGuard or Reuters Institute brand data found.

Sports-only outlets (3)

Cricinfosince 1993ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.8High

Independent ratings

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

No rater covers ESPNcricinfo directly; espn.com is rated High by MBFC. ESPNcricinfo has been cricket's main specialist reference since 1993, and I found no documented false-reporting record. The score rests on proxy evidence and long standing, so confidence is low.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

ESPN publishes a corrections policy, but the page does not mention ESPNcricinfo, and since Nov 2024 the site sits in the JioStar group. The only formal Cricinfo apology I found was second-hand (2004, Langer). I found no Cricinfo-specific policy or corrections page.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Launched in 1993, owned by Wisden and then ESPN, it is the leading global cricket specialist outlet. I found no major journalism awards; it runs its own ESPNcricinfo Awards, which are not evidence of external recognition.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Ownership per Wikipedia (JioStar, Nov 2024) was not independently verified. No direct third-party reliability rating exists. Prestige rests on standing rather than awards.

Sky Sportssince 1991ReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence3.8High

Independent ratings

Reliability4

Generally factual; occasional documented errors, corrected.

No independent rater covers Sky Sports itself; its sister Sky News is rated High by MBFC, and the 2023 Broadcast Sport Awards named Sky Sports Broadcaster of the Year. I found no documented false-reporting pattern. Ofcom has ruled against it on conduct and offensive-language issues, not accuracy. Evidence is thin, so this is a moderate, low-confidence score.

Corrections3

Some evidence of corrections, or complaints-body membership, but no public policy.

Sky Sports TV is Ofcom-licensed and subject to the Broadcasting Code, and Sky has issued on-air apologies. I found no public corrections policy or visible corrections page for skysports.com.

Prestige4

Leading national or specialist outlet, long established, with major awards.

Sky Sports is the UK's leading sports broadcaster (launched as Sky Sports in 1991, from BSB's Sports Channel of 1990). It was 2023 Broadcast Sport Awards Broadcaster of the Year and has repeatedly won the FIA F1 international broadcaster award.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Founded year: 1991 as Sky Sports; its predecessor (The Sports Channel, BSB) launched in 1990. No MBFC, Ad Fontes or NewsGuard rating found for Sky Sports. No SJA 2025 wins found for Sky Sports. Transfer-rumour content is a known genre risk, but I found no documented false-reporting finding.

ThePapareReliabilityCorrectionsPrestigelow confidence2.8Low

Reliability3

Mostly factual, but notable documented lapses or a strong partisan or state slant shaping coverage — or too little evidence either way.

I found no independent rating, regulator finding or documented false-reporting incident. It is a Sri Lankan school, club and national sports hub branded 'Powered by Dialog' with sponsor-linked tournaments, which is a potential commercial conflict but not proof of inaccuracy. The moderate score reflects thin evidence.

Corrections2

No policy found and corrections rarely seen.

The site publishes no corrections or editorial policy and names no complaints channel beyond an editor email address. I found no visible corrections. This is absence of evidence from limited checking.

Prestige3

Established national or specialist outlet.

It is an established national specialist outlet (about 10 years old in 2019, staff of 50+) that pioneered sports live-streaming in Sri Lanka. Its awards are domestic: Presidential Sports Awards (Most Outstanding Sports Social Media Network 2017-18) and Sabuddhi Sports Literature Award for best digital media in 2020.

Low confidence — little independent evidence; the score leans on defaults or proxies. Founding year not stated anywhere I found; the 2019 '10 years' article implies about 2009 (inference, left null). Award claims come mostly from ThePapare's own pages. Ownership relationship with Dialog Axiata is unconfirmed. Prestige could reasonably be 2 (niche/young) if the reviewer weights its domestic-only awards lower.