December 13th, 2018: PUBLIC BROADCASTING FEES (dpa version + clients' version: rtl.de)
While many fact-checks are conducted to examine claims from politicians or other persons of public interest, we also use fact-checks to question stereotypical public beliefs.
December 12th, 2018: TERROR ATTACK IN STRASBOURG (dpa version + clients' version: stern.de)
We use the format "Was wir wissen. Was wir nicht wissen" (What we know and what we don't know) to provide a quick overview over verified facts about an ongoing situation and also to analyse and debunk rumors or hoaxes which are spread on social media and the internet.
December 12th, 2018: ARE SMARTPHONES MAKING YOU SICK? (dpa version + clients' version: Bild Zeitung)
We are not only fact-checking politicial issues, but take a broader approach. In this case our science desk conducted the fact-check supported by our fact-checking unit.
December 7th, 2018: CLIMATE CHANGE (dpa version + clients' version: Web.de)
In regular cases we try to answer in our fact-checks the one main disputed question, but in cases like this it is more helpful for the reader to split a very complex topic into several parts which have to be verified separately.
November 27th, 2018: DONATIONS TO CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS (dpa version + clients' version: Zeit Online)
To provide consumers with timely fact-checks we are also picking topics not only based on newsworthy events, but also on seasonal reasons.
November 23th, 2018: ASYLUM FOR REFUGEES (dpa version + clients' version: Wiesbadener Tagblatt)
Fact-checks don't always result in a clear and unambigious conclusion. In this case we factchecked the claim of a highly important politician and even if we were not able to answer all aspects, the result was still very valuable for the readers.
November 21th, 2018: ILLEGAL PARTY FINANCING (dpa version + clients' version: Leipziger Volkszeitung)
November 9th 2018: GLOBAL COMPACT FOR MIGRATION (dpa version + clients' version: Huffingtonpost.de)
November 8th 2018: DID THE WHITE HOUSE SHARE A MANIPULATED VIDEO? (dpa version + clients' version:Stuttgarter Zeitung)
November 5th 2018: EMISSIONS SCANDAL (dpa version + clients' version: Berliner Zeitung)
Ideally a dpa fact-check contains the parts "Claim", "Assessment" and "Facts". This format ist supposed to provide great clarity for the readers. What exactly is the claim? How is dpa assessing the claim? And on what facts is the dpa's verdict based? The evulation should contain a clear verdict: "The claim is right (or wrong)." But it's also possible that we have to use "softer" verdicts, if the case is not black and white. Then we use phrases like "is mostly true" or "is mostly wrong".