January, 22nd, 2020 PULMONARY DISEASE IN CHINA: AS DANGEROUS AS SARS? dpa version + clients' version: (NWZ.de), (Zeit.de)
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.
January, 21st, 2020 TRUMP SAVES THE US-ECONOMY - IS IT TRUE? dpa version + clients' version: (Gießener Allgemeine), (RND.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.
December 13th, 2019: MILLIONS OF UNEMPLOYED IN GERMANY, COMPANIES CAN'T FIND ENOUGH SKILLED EMPLOYEES. HOW TO EXPLAIN THIS CONTROVERSY
dpa version + clients' version: (zdf.de), (fr.de)
December 9th, 2019: MORE WHITE CHRISTMASES IN THE PAST? dpa version + clients' version: (stuttgarter-zeitung.de), (RND.de)
To provide consumers with timely fact-checks we are also picking topics not only based on newsworthy events, but also on seasonal reasons.
November 29th, 2019: WE MANAGED TO DEAL WITH THE OZON LAYER. IS THIS ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE? dpa version + clients' version: (zeit.de), (Süddeutsche.de)
November 28th, 2019: 25 GLOBAL CLIMATE CONFERENCES - WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? dpa version + clients' version: (zeit.de), (Südkurier.de)
November 19th, 2019: FACTS INSTEAD OF FAKE NEWS? FACT-CHECKING THE NEW AFD-STUDY dpa version + clients' version: (Volksstimme.de), (zeit.de)
November 18th, 2019: 5G: IS IT MAKING US SICK? dpa version + clients' version: (Nordbayern.de), (Focus.de), (Arcor.de)
November 14th, 2019: ANTI-MEASLES-VACCINATION: RUMORS VS. FACTS dpa version + clients' version: (Die Harke), (Welt.de)
November 3rd,.2019: FACT-CHECKING FLUORID: HOW MUCH TOOTH PASTE IS DANGEROUS? dpa version + clients' version: (t-online.de), (Hamburger Abendblatt), (Radio Bielefeld)
October 10th, 2019: TERROR ATTAC ON SYNAGOGE IN HALLE: WHAT WE DO KNOW, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW dpa version + clients' version: (ZDF.de), (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.
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 evaluation 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".