Organization: Cek Fakta - Liputan 6
Applicant: Irna Gustiawati
Assessor: Sara Schonhardt
Edits made by the organization after this assessment
IFCN Staff wrote:
Please check improvements in this attachment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTuTwSB2YkzJ90u55kPLAYE4UpKStqjy/view
From the assessor:
Liputan 6 continues to show improvements. Its most recent amendments more clearly define the authors and key actors behind the fact-checking project. It’s worth noting that the reporters who do the fact checks do so specifically but not explicitly, and while they’re listed as Fact Checkers on the editorial team page, their specific profiles don’t include this distinction.
The sourcing also shows an improvement by including links directly to information that allows the reader to replicate the fact check.
It appears that Liputan6 is trying hard to achieve compliance. My concern is that they are doing so in haste. The fact check methodology, for example, says that the fact check team consists of three people when further down five people are listed.
My recommendation is that Liputan6 be accepted on the condition that it submit proof of continuous improvements after three months and continue to working to ensure compliance with IFCN principles.
Conclusion and recommendations
Sara Schonhardt wrote:
Liputan6 has made improvements since the previous application. It has increased the frequency with which it publishes its fact-check stories and created a sub-channel for readers to access those stories in one place. However, I believe there are still some areas that could use improvement.
My recommendation is that Liputan6 is compliant with most principles and should make edits to be accepted. Categories that could use improvement are:
Organization: The fact-checking operation should be made a more distinct section of Liputan6, its team of reporters more clearly defined and the stories made more accessible. It’s methodology could be laid out more clearly and readers more actively invited to reach out.
Transparency of Sourcing: Sources should be more clearly and accurately referenced or linked to so readers can replicate the fact check.