Applicant: Vinod Rathi
Assessor: Kanchan Kaur
Edits made by the organization after this assessment
IFCN Staff wrote:
Hi Kanchan Ji,
Thank you for your assessment, please find below our response.
1. You felt that Fact Crescendo usually explains how a claim is fact-checked, but not always in such detail that readers could check for themselves.
A: To ensure we comply with this aspect now we have started publishing articles under 3 core headers:
Narrative in Social Media
Our Fact Check
This is done for making it easier for readers to understand the “What,” “Who,” “When,” “Where,” “Why” & “How” of any article we publish.
Also recently, we have started including where required and possible, links of images, tweets, webpage etc from an online archive www.archive.is.
All this is done so that readers can easily fact check by themselves the various links and images in an article, even if originals are removed.
We believe in the principle of Transparency in Sources & Methodology and we will continuously strive to improve our website so that readers can easily verify our information.
Please check the below articles for your reference:
2. You felt that the Fact Crescendo website does not provide statistics on the frequency of reader-submitted fact checks.
A: To comply with this we have now put up a counter displaying “Total Number of Reader Submitted Fact Checks”, this counter has been included in the “Submit For Fact Check” page instead of “Correction Page”. We did this as we felt that “Total Number of Reader Submitted FactChecks” should be displayed on the page where submissions are actually done. In case required, we can also add the same counter on “Corrections Page”. Link: https://factcrescendo.com/factcheck/
3. You felt that though the organisation has published a clear corrections policy that explains how mistakes are corrected, it does not mention a time frame, nor does it list corrections on a public page.
A: To comply with this we have now listed all article corrections and clarifications which we have done so far on a public page named “Correction Page”, for readers to view and read. This correction list contains all articles, which have been corrected by Fact Crescendo Team, post publication due reader requests or through due diligence at our end. We have put the details of the original mistake and how we corrected it.
Also in our correction policy now we have put a time-frame of 10 days maximum for the correction process and article resubmission process to take place.
From the assessor:
The applicant has made all necessary changes. The application may be accepted.
Conclusion and recommendations
Kanchan Kaur wrote:
Fact Crescendo is a fact-checking project of a legally-registered commercial transcription company.
The site has an archive of fact checks, beginning June, though there are indications that the fact-checking division only got up and running in August this year. In June and July, it has published a fact-check on an average of one a week--four in each month. The number of fact checks picks up in August.
Most fact-checks are clearly explained and cover wide-ranging subjects.
The organisation implements its policy on preventing staff from involvement in political parties or advocacy organizations through clauses in its appointment letters and employee handbooks.
The applicant’s methodology, mentioned on its website, usually explains how a claim is fact-checked, but not always in such detail that readers could check for themselves.
The team and its roles are clearly indicated.
Readers can get in touch through several ways—at the end of each post, a contact us page, space to submit fact-checks, email address and a WhatsApp number. However, the website does not provide statistics on the frequency of reader-submitted fact checks.
Though the organisation has published a clear corrections policy that explains how mistakes are corrected, it does not mention a time frame, nor does it list corrections on a public page.
The applicant could be asked to list corrections on a public page that also provides data on reader-submitted fact checks. It could also be asked to explain its work in a manner that readers could check for themselves.