We’re following the example of the Washington Post in using a simple graphic to depict our assessment of the factualness of statements made by people covered by AxaMonitor.

Like the Post’s “Pinnochios,” AxaMonitor will use its own Trek character, a well-known adversary known for his only occasional relationship with the truth.

Mudd, for short. One of the most popular antagonists of Star Trek’s original series, the character was even revived on The Animated Series and more recently on Star Trek: Discovery.

He’s a lying, thieving, self-aggrandizing, greedy and scurrilous scoundrel. So what better Star Trek character to use to rate the veracity and intent of statements upon which we report. Here’s how we judge their truthfulness (descriptions adapted from the Washington Post):¹⁾

One Mudd Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods. (You could view this as “mostly true.”)

Two Mudds
Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people. (Similar to “half true.”)

Three Mudds
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions. This gets into the realm of “mostly false.” But it could include statements which are technically correct (such as based on official government data) but are so taken out of context as to be very misleading. The line between Two and Three can be bit fuzzy and we do not award half-Pinocchios. So we strive to explain the factors that tipped us toward a Three.

Four Mudds
Whoppers.

Spock’s Science Insignia
Statements and claims that contain “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” will be recognized with our prized Spock Science Insignia. We tend to reserve this for claims that are unexpectedly true, so it is not awarded very often.

Upside-Down Mudd
A statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.

Verdict Pending
There are occasions when it is impossible to render a snap judgment because the issue is very complex or there are good arguments on both sides. In this case, we will withhold our judgment until we can gather more facts. We will use this website to shed as much light as possible on factual controversies that are not easily resolved.

Finally, we also have a feature called “Recidivism Watch,” which highlights claims repeated by politicians even though the claim has been previously debunked.

All judgments are subject to debate and criticism from our readers and interested parties, and can be revised if fresh evidence emerges. We invite you to join the discussion on these pages and contact the Fact Checker directly with tips, suggestions, and complaints. If you feel that we are being too harsh on one candidate and too soft on another, there is a simple remedy: let us know about misstatements and factual errors we may have overlooked.

If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, please let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We issue our own ruling on factual disputes (see our rules on the “Pinocchio Test” below) but it can be revised and updated if fresh evidence emerges. Our view is that a fact check is never really finished, so the rating can be revised after we obtain new information that changes the factual basis for our original ruling.