La Voce

Organization: Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
Applicant: Mariasole Lisciandro
Assessor: Paolo Attivissimo
Edits made by the organization after this assessment

IFCN Staff wrote:

1) More details about property have been added in these pages: chi siamo, la redazione.

2) More details about costs have been added here: chi siamo, sostieni lavoce, scopri come spendiamo i vostri soldi.

3) We made a new form, that has been linked in all recent fact-checkings and in our policy.

4) We provided further details on how we correct our fact-checkings in our policy.


From the assessor:

With the additions and amendments listed above, La Voce is now fully compliant with the criteria and the recommendations.


Conclusion and recommendations
on 13-Apr-2018 (1 year ago)

Paolo Attivissimo wrote:

Recommendation: accept with minor edits

4a) Spending is not described publicly in detail as required and there is no public statement of ownership.

5b) There is no easily identifiable way for readers to discover the Google Docs submission form.

6) The public corrections policy should be expanded from its current single-sentence terseness.

on 13-Apr-2018 (1 year ago)

Paolo Attivissimo recommended Accept with edits


Section 1: Organization

Criterion 1a
Proof of registration
Evidence required: Please provide evidence that the signatory is a legally-registered organization set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking or the distinct fact-checking project of a recognized media house or research institution.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
21-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

La Voce is registered as a not-for-profit association (associazione senza scopo di lucro) that has the goal of “contributing to the improvement of information, especially in economic matters in Italy” through the primary vehicle of the website www.lavoce.info. Evidence of legal registration is in the attached statement (visura) from the Chamber of Commerce of Milan (Italy). It is not set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking, but it does have a distinct fact-checking section (http://www.lavoce.info/archives/category/rubriche/fact-checking/). 


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Criterion 1b
Archive
Evidence required: Insert a link to the archive of fact checks published in the previous three months. If you do not collect all fact checks in one place, please explain how the fact-checking is conducted by your organization.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Section 2: Nonpartisanship and Fairness

Criterion 2a
Body of work sample
Evidence required: Please share links to ten fact checks that better represent the scope and consistency of your fact-checking. Provide a short explanation of how your organization strives to maintain coherent standards across fact checks.

Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Signatory has provided the following fact-checks, which cover statements made by a broad range of political figures:

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/51010/berlusconi-la-moltiplicazione-irregolari-clandestini/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/50695/numeri-salvini-sugli-immigrati-falsi/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/50627/anche-grasso-contagiato-dai-no-vax/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/50053/monti-renzi-voluto-bail/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/48734/pensione-piu-tardi-dei-tedeschi/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/48229/fact-checking-piu-incendi-senza-forestali/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/47754/davvero-ceta-pericoloso-dice-salvini/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/47409/neanche-parlamentari-sanno-bene-cose-reddito-cittadinanza/

www.lavoce.info/archives/47004/renzi-buco-delletruria-poca-cosa/

http://www.lavoce.info/archives/50870/maio-sceglie-dati-parlare-bonus-80-euro/

Signatory has explained how La Voce strives to maintain standards as follows:

Explanation: our process is standardized for all the fact-checkings, and is composed of four phases: 1) picking up of the statement, from tv shows, newspapers and social networks; 2) verifying data and facts, adding all the links available; 3) a peer review made by other fact-checkers; 4) a final peer review by our editorial staff of professors.


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Criterion 2b
Nonpartisanship policy
Evidence required: Please share evidence of your policy preventing staff from direct involvement in political parties and advocacy organizations. Please also indicate the policy your organization has as a whole regarding advocacy and supporting political candidates.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

http://www.lavoce.info/la-redazione/

The members indicated by the asterisk are involved in government institutions or political parties. They are still members of the editorial staff, but they can not write about issues regarding their role (or the conflict of interest is clearly indicated at the end of the article). 

Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The members indicated by the asterisk [in the list at http://www.lavoce.info/la-redazione/ supplied by signatory] are involved in government institutions or political parties. They are still members of the editorial staff, but they can not write about issues regarding their role (or the conflict of interest is clearly indicated at the end of the article).

This statement was spot-checked and found to be correct.


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Section 3: Transparency of Sources

Criterion 3a
Sources Policy
Please share a brief and public explanation (500 words max) of how sources are provided in enough detail that readers could replicate the fact check. If you have a public policy on how you find and use sources for your fact-checking, it should be shared here.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

As written, we use just public sources available by direct links, in order to let the readers check our verifying process. It happened that we corrected a fact-checking after a warning of a reader. Here it's the policy: www.lavoce.info/fact-checking-de-lavoce/.

Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

As written, we use just public sources available by direct links, in order to let the readers check our verifying process. It happened that we corrected a fact-checking after a warning of a reader. Here it's the policy: www.lavoce.info/fact-checking-de-lavoce/.

The link provided in the above statement does indeed present a description of the fact-checking process used by La Voce and can be considered a policy on sources. The description also references the IFCN code of principles. Fact-checks provide an abundance of direct links to sources and verbatim quotes of the claims being checked.


done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Section 4: Transparency of Funding & Organization

Criterion 4a
Funding Sources
Evidence required: Please link to the section where you publicly list your sources of funding (including, if they exist, any rules around which types of funding you do or don't accept), or a statement on ownership if you are the branch of an established media organization or research institution.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Sources of funding are listed publicly at www.lavoce.info/chi-ci-finanzia/.

There is a partial overview of spending, with a limited amount of detail, on the same page; further detail is provided at http://www.lavoce.info/sostieni-la-voce/come-spendiamo-i-vostri-soldi/, although not as strict accounting but more as a general description.

The form in which the organization is registered (associazione, i.e., association) is stated at www.lavoce.info/chi-ci-finanzia/.

There is no public statement of ownership, which is instead recommended by the criteria for fact-checking sections of media houses.


done 4a marked as Partially compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Criterion 4b
Staff
Evidence required: Please link to the section detailing all authors and key actors behind your fact-checking project with their biographies. You can also list the name and bios of the members of the editorial board, pool of experts, advisory board, etc. if your organization has those.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The fact-checking team is listed here: http://www.lavoce.info/fact-checking-de-lavoce/. The biographies are available at the end of each fact-checkings.

Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Authors and key actors are listed clearly at http://www.lavoce.info/la-redazione/il-comitato-di-redazione/ and http://www.lavoce.info/la-redazione, together with their biographies.


done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Criterion 4c
Contact
Evidence required: Please link to the section where readers can get in touch with the organization.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The readers can contact the organization by an email address shown in the homepage.

Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The public can easily reach La Voce via an e-mail address displayed on the home page (info@lavoce.info).


done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Section 5: Transparency of Methodology

Criterion 5a
Detailed Methodology
Evidence required: Please link to a section or article detailing the steps you follow for your fact-checking work.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Methodology, topic selection criteria and motivations are described adequately at http://www.lavoce.info/fact-checking-de-lavoce/.


done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Criterion 5b
Claim submissions
Evidence required: Please link to the page or process through which readers can submit claims to fact-check. If you do not allow this, please briefly explain why.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Signatory notes that readers can submit a claim for fact-checking via a Google Docs form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScnarfSd1sc5uDH8CMdog6-zPB3IciSb_vOGO4Pat3XR8Y6hw/viewform?usp=sf_link). However, there is no easily identifiable link to this form on the home page or in the fact-checking section of the site. A reader would probably find it difficult to locate this submission form.

An e-mail address for generic contact (info@lavoce.info) is provided on the home page and might be assumed by readers to be a way to submit claims for fact-checking.

Moreover, fact-checking articles include a space for comments which could be used to submit claims.

The Google Docs form describes concisely the kind of claims that La Voce is available to fact-check.


done 5b marked as Partially compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Section 6: Open & Honest Corrections Policy

Criterion 6a
Corrections policy
Evidence required: Please link to the page with your policy to address corrections. If it is not public, please share your organization's handbook.

Fact-checking de Lavoce.info
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

A rather terse corrections policy is stated at http://www.lavoce.info/fact-checking-de-lavoce/ and consists of a single sentence which can be translated as “In case of errors, articles are corrected in a conspicuous manner”.

Signatory provided two examples of implemented corrections (http://www.lavoce.info/archives/48734/pensione-piu-tardi-dei-tedeschi/ and http://www.lavoce.info/archives/46504/fact-checking-alitalia/). Both clearly indicated that a correction had been made. The corrections were clearly stated, presented as a footnote and dated. In both cases, the original text of the fact-check appeared to be unchanged but a callout (in the form of an asterisk) was added to the incorrect part of the text.


done 6a marked as Partially compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Criterion 6b
Examples of corrections
Evidence required: Please provide two examples of a correction made, or correction requests handled, in the past year.

Paolo Attivissimo Assessor
19-Feb-2018 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The evidece fully complies with IFCN standards


done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Paolo Attivissimo.

Section 7: Eligibility to be a signatory

Criterion 1.1
The applicant is a legally registered organization, or a distinct team or unit within a legally registered organization, and details of this are easily found on its website.

Criterion 1.2
The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.

Criterion 1.3
The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the three months prior to the date of application.

Criterion 1.4
On average, at least 75% of the applicant’s fact checks focus on claims related to issues that, in the view of the IFCN, relate to or could have an impact on the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public or society.

Criterion 1.5
The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.

Criterion 1.6
If the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, it provides a statement on its site setting out to the satisfaction of the IFCN, how it ensures its funders do not influence the findings of its reports.

Section 8: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness

Criterion 2.1
The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.

Criterion 2.2
The applicant does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to check and publishes a short statement on its website to set out how it selects claims to check.

Criterion 2.3
The applicant discloses in its fact checks relevant interests of the sources it quotes where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. It also discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships it has that a member of the public might reasonably conclude could influence the findings of the fact check.

Criterion 2.4
The applicant is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.

Criterion 2.5
The applicant sets out its policy on non-partisanship for staff on its site. Save for the issues of accuracy and transparency, the applicant’s staff do not get involved in advocacy or publicise their views on policy issues the organization might fact check in such a way as might lead a reasonable member of the public to see the organization’s work as biased.

Section 9: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources

Criterion 3.1
The applicant identifies the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks, providing relevant links where the source is available online, in such a way that users can replicate their work if they wish. In cases where identifying the source would compromise the source’s personal security, the applicant provides as much detail as compatible with the source’s safety.

Criterion 3.2
The applicant uses the best available primary, not secondary, sources of evidence wherever suitable primary sources are available. Where suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source.

Criterion 3.3
The applicant checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence save where the one source is the only source relevant on the topic.

Criterion 3.4
The applicant identifies in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.

Section 10: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization

Criterion 4.1
Applicants that are independent organizations have a page on their website detailing each source of funding accounting for 5% or more of total revenue for its previous financial year. This page also sets out the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).

Criterion 4.2
Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.

Criterion 4.3
A statement on the applicant’s website sets out the applicant’s organizational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

Criterion 4.4
A page on the applicant’s website details the professional biography of all those who, according to the organizational structure and play a significant part in its editorial output.

Criterion 4.5
The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.

Section 11: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology

Criterion 5.1
The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.

Criterion 5.2
The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and where possible explains the reason for choosing the claim to check.

Criterion 5.3
The applicant sets out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.

Criterion 5.4
The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.

Criterion 5.5
The applicant seeks where possible to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence, noting that (i) this is often not possible with online claims, (ii) if the person who makes the claim fails to reply in a timely way this should not impede the fact check, (iii) if a speaker adds caveats to the claim, the fact-checker should be free to continue with checking the original claim, (iv) fact-checkers may not wish to contact the person who made the claim for safety or other legitimate reasons.

Criterion 5.6
The applicant encourages users to send in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

Section 12: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy

Criterion 6.1
The applicant has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily visible and accessible on the organization’s website or frequently referenced in broadcasts.

Criterion 6.2
The policy sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may justify no response. This policy is adhered to scrupulously.

Criterion 6.3
Where credible evidence is provided that the applicant has made a mistake worthy of correction, the applicant makes a correction openly and transparently, seeking as far as possible to ensure that users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.

Criterion 6.4
The applicant, if an existing signatory, should either on its corrections/complaints page or on the page where it declares itself an IFCN signatory inform users that if they believe the signatory is violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN, with a link to the IFCN site.

Criterion 6.5
If the applicant is the fact-checking unit of a media company, it is a requirement of signatory status that the parent media company has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy.