Britain copes with great skepticism on EU issues, which prompting the referendum question | CARL COURT/AFP/Getty Media In crowd joins forces against Brexit Former top editors at the Guardian, Reuters and the Economist are among the founders of a new website.

LONDON — Frustrated by what they see as campaigners and pundits playing loose with the facts, a group of prominent British journalists — including the former editors of the Economist and the Guardian — have come together to fact check the Brexit debate.

Alan Rusbridger, who ran the Guardian for two decades until May, and Bill Emmott, the author and former Economist editor, are among the backers of a new website that will push back against what they say are “inaccuracies and twisted logic” put forward by the Euroskeptics, and to make the case for Britain staying in the European Union.

The site, InFacts, is the brainchild of the BreakingViews founder Hugo Dixon, who has been an outspoken advocate for Britain's membership of the EU. Geert Linnebank, former editor-in-chief of Reuters, and Will Hutton, the columnist and former editor of The Observer, are also on board.

“We’re going to be doing a mixture of making the positive case for being in and rebuttal,” Dixon said in an interview. “[We will be] trying to keep people honest. If people know there are people out there who are watching and who are going to swoop if we find things that are inaccurate, that will be helpful.”

The website arose from a meeting of some of Dixon’s journalist contacts at his home in West London in the summer.

Dixon was concerned, he said, that Euroskeptic campaigners have made false assertions in advancing the case for Britain leaving the EU, and that there has been "more heat than light" in much of the media coverage about the U.K.'s membership. Concepts such as the free movement of people and open borders are often confused and misunderstood.

“It’s a fairly complicated issue, the question of whether we should stay in or get out, there are lots of arguments on both sides,” Dixon said. “The arguments are much stronger on the In case than Out case, but there are clearly arguments on both sides and counter-arguments. I don’t think this is getting out very much to the general public.”

He added: “The only issue which is impacting on the general public is the migration issue and I don’t think it’s being presented in the right way.”

The journalists agreed to form a website to monitor the coverage and debate.

Dixon has pulled together a team of 11 part-time editors, including Rusbridger and Emmott, to oversee the site. Money has been raised from the editors and other private backers, and they are recruiting a team of four full-time staff to monitor media coverage, conduct research, and write articles and newsletters.

InFacts is expected to launch in the second half of January, Dixon said. It is not affiliated to existing In or Out campaign groups.