Faktisk.no

Organization: Faktisk.no
Applicant: Kristoffer Egeberg
Assessor: Ester Appelgren
Edits made by the organization after this assessment

IFCN Staff wrote:

Comments and improvements regarding the pending renewal process for Faktisk.no

In regards of the comments and questions made by our assessor on our latest application, we would like to like to point out some immediate improvements made, and forward some comments and questions regarding the assessment.

Regarding section 4A

Assessors comment

The assessor has rated this Partially compliant in her assessment and recommends us to disclose our yearly spendings.

Our comment

This is a great idea. This has now been implemented by uploading our full financial statement, which displays our accounting in detail: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/finansiering

Also, in order to make it even easier to follow our finances, we have redone our financial disclosure page so it is easy to filter by year and see more details.

We hope the assessor and the IFCN board approves of this effort to improve our transparency.

Improvement

Our full financial statement with detailed annual accounts is now disclosed on our page.

https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/finansiering

https://res.cloudinary.com/faktisk/image/upload/s--ubg-kgcb--/v1540631499/%C3%85rsregnskap/%C3%85rsregnskap_2017_Faktisk.no_byceq1.pdf

Regarding section 5A

Assessors comment

The assessor has rated this as Partially compliant in her assessment, and writes:

"The description of the faktisk.no methodology, provided in the method section is excellent. However, a complaint has reached the IFCN that highlights an area not clearly adressed by Faktisk.no. The complaint adresses the lack of description on what the difference is between "Delvis rett" (partly correct) and "Delvis feil" (partly wrong). One is positive and the other is negative, and the two categories could actually be considered equal. Therefore, Faktisk.no needs to clarify the difference."

Our comment

On the Methodology page, our methodology and rating scale is explained in detail (https://www.faktisk.no/metode), the five ratings are explained - making them in our opinion easy to distinguish. About Partly True and Partly Wrong, the wording, roughly translated into English, says:

* Partly True: The facts and/or the context supports the claim, however it does not paint the full picture"

* Partly Wrong: The facts and/or context does not support the claim or is used in a wrong or clearly misleading way

Also, we would like to point out that every fact-check has a written conclusion and a written description of often more than 1000 words explaining exactly how and why we conclude as we do. So it is hard for us understand that this is a soft spot to our assessment.

However, in order to address this critique, we have now made the scale hyperlinked in every fact-check, so readers will be directed to the Methodology page if they click on the rating.

A last note on this: The complainant quoted in the assessment caims that all Norwegian media is a "social construction". He has never forwarded any complaints to us as we are aware of. (Twitter profile: https://twitter.com/superkongen)

Improvement

We have hyperlinked our rating in every fact-check to the explanation of the rating scale on our Methodology page.

https://www.faktisk.no/metode#skala

Regarding section 5B

Assessors comment

The assessor has rated this as Fully compliant in her assessment. However she points out that all though contact details for credit, critique or claims to check are easy to find, it is not well described how to forward claims to fact-check.

Our comment

All though the assessor finds us fully compliant, we want to improve the way readers can forward claims to fact-check. For some time, we have been working with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in order to build an intelligent tip portal. We hope to present a first version of this before years end.

Improvement

We will implement a new and intelligent tip-portal within the year.

Regarding section 6A:

Assessors comment

The assessor has rated this as Non compliant in her assessment, and writes:

"There is a general corrections log, and all articles are accompanied by specific corrections log for that article. However a "correction policy" is not provided, rather a short description on that corrections can occur and how the reader can find them. I did not find any specific descriptions on how the audience can request a correction.

Furthermore, a complaint has reached the IFCN concerning corrections. This complaint is about the content in a story about the history of skis. This particular claim highlights the need to clarify how a reader can contact Faktisk.no and what routines the applicant then has regarding audience feedback.

For this reason I have chosen "Non compliant" here, and I would recommend that Faktisk.no creates a policy that also describes audience feedback and what can be expected if the audience finds that facts in a story are doubtful to them."

Our comment

We find this assessment too strict and partly unfounded.

When it comes to policies: our About us section (https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss) has a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles, and outlined the policy of article 5: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy.

In our translation, we state: "We have a transparent corrections policy and follow it always. Our corrections are clearly marked and openly published in compliant with our corrections policy, to make sure our readers sees the correct version."

Also we outline our "House ethics rules", which comes in addition to the Norwegian Press Association's Code of Ethics, which applies to us (https://presse.no/pfu/etiske-regler/vaer-varsom-plakaten/vvpl-engelsk/). These bind us to fair treatment of all sources.

When it comes to the assessors point of not finding a description on how to request a correction, this is clearly stated on the footer on all our pages, including our front page and on every fact-check and article we publish. This is policy for media outlets in Norway. This includes the name and email address to the editor-in-chief, as well as our general contact address. It also hyperlinks to the Norwegian Press Association's Code of Ethics, the Norwegian Editor's Association’s Code of Ethics, and to the IFCN Code Of Principles. The text says:

"Vi arbeider etter Vær varsom-plakatens regler for god presseskikk, Redaktørplakaten og faktasjekkplakaten. Den som mener seg rammet av urettmessig publisering, oppfordres til å ta kontakt med redaksjonen."

Which translates to: "We follow the Norwegian Press Code of Ethics (link), the Norwegian Editors code of principles (link) and the Fact-Checkers code of principles (link). Anyone who feels afflicted by unfair publication (hard to translate literally) should contact us (link to email).

Also, as the assessor also has verified, we publish full bios and contact details for all our staff in the About us section. Every fact-check has a byline with the name and email link to the fact-checkers who wrote the article.

We also have a very active dialogue with our readers by email, Twitter and Facebook page - were the discussion is live almost 24/7.

The assessor refers to a complaint that has reached IFCN from a Norwegian ski-maker on a historic fact story (not check) we have published in cooperation with the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo. The complainant has also complained to us by e-mail, published an opinion piece in a publication that covers the Norwegian media, and complained to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission - based on the guidelines stated on our front page.

After this, some corrections were made, clearly displayed and published in our change log - and stated on Facebook. Also, we have been open and transparent about this, facing the complainant's very loud and outspoken complaints in the press:

https://www.medier24.no/artikler/klager-inn-faktisk-no-til-pfu-for-faktafeil-i-ski-video/448196

In our opinion, the facts of how this complaint was received and handled directly contradicts the thesis that it has been unclear how to reach us, file complaints or have corrections made. All was done in accordance with our guidelines, which also pointed the complainant to the IFCN.

As a side note, the secretary of the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission has dismissed the complaint as groundless on the basis that the error was minor, corrections were made and no ethical guidelines were broken.

Improvement

To make it clearer how to complain, we have added statement about our corrections policy and how to complain in our methodology-page, with links to our change log and the ethical guidelines we follow. This statement is hyperlinked from the above explained footer-text on every page on the site.

https://www.faktisk.no/metode#rettelser-og-klager

We hope the assessor and IFCN board welcomes our answers and improvements, and takes them into consideration both in the assessment and the in the vote for renewal.

Kind regards, Kristoffer Egeberg

Editor-in-chief, Faktisk.no



From the assessor: 

I want to thank Faktisk.no for the adjustments, and I now find them fully compliant.


Conclusion and recommendations
on 08-Oct-2018 (1 year ago)

Ester Appelgren wrote:

Faktisk.no is an excellent initiative!

This is an application for renewal, and I find it fully compliant with just two exceptions. I would recommend that spendings are specified and that it is a bit more clear to the audience how they can send in claims and how they can request corrections to claims.


on 08-Oct-2018 (1 year ago)

Ester Appelgren 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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

This is an application for renewal. There is no change in our purpose or organization. Though we have gained two additional owners, Amedia and Polaris Media - two of Norways largest media corporations controlling about 100 local media outlets. 
This is the link to the official Norwegian company register: https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=919036508


Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The applicant is a registered organization (limited company), and funded by six major Norwegian media companies. The funding organizations are not directly involved in the applicant's operations and thus not signatories of their own.


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

www.faktisk.no

We also post videos and simple debunks directly on facebook as posts: www.facebook.com/faktisk/


Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago)

yes, the applicant evaluates if a claim is true or not true in each story. For the past three moths, the applicant has published several stories a week, often one story each workday.


done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago


https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/L2l/isarealet-ved-nordpolen-er-tilbake-pa-1979-niva

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/GjD/ny-alarmerende-studie-hpv-vaksine-reduserer-muligheten-for-a-bli-gravid

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/X1v/greta-92-kastes-ut-av-pleiehjemmet-avdelingen-skal-bli-asylmottak

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/Gje/norge-tok-frivillig-imot-1500-asylsokere-for-a-avlaste-italia-og-hellas-og-var-et-av-de-fa-landene

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/pVq/forskning-viser-at-en-hund-er-like-ille-for-klimaet-som-to-store-suv-er

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/6Z/hva-vil-det-si-a-vaere-etnisk-norsk

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/W7e/dagens-vaksiner-og-vaksinasjonsprogrammer-utgjor-en-helserisiko

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/bPN/for-forste-gang-i-norsk-historie-har-politiet-gatt-inn-og-fysisk-hentet-ut-en-familie-som-satt-i-kir

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/y6/dette-ble-endret-i-den-omstridte-ssb-rapporten

Example of segment cooperation with NRK* (see also video): 

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/bLN/menn-har-bedre-stedsans-enn-kvinner

Example of video fact checks: (Made for posting on Facebook)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdB6xNNny1g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hagfcoiShQ

We follow the IFCN Code of Principles, as well as the journalistic ethic guidelines of the Norwegian Press Association. Also, we have made our own open guidelines stated openly here: https://www.faktisk.no/metode/

In short, we identify, pick and fact check important, surprising, interesting and/or influential factual claims made in the public domain - including the political discussion, in the media, in social medias e.t.c. We also strive to uncover and stop the spread of so called "false news" and "alternative facts".

When fact checking, we give the subjects who has made the claims an early opportunity verify context and support their claims with documentation.

After fact checking, we conclude with one of our five categories: True, Partly true, Not sure, Partly false of False.

If the claim is found mostly true, not sure, mostly false or false, the subject of the fact check is given the opportunity to comment the conclusion.

Also, based on our experience after one year of fact-checking, we have included a scale-free category for in depth insight fact-checks were it is impossible to conclude, or were a categoric conclusion would be counter productive in regards of highlighting the facts. These insight-articles are marked with a blue color.

We also produce video fact-checks an explainers for use on Facebook and Snap Chat. 

* We also cooperate with the public broadcaster NRK in making a fact-checking segment for their weekly consumer show "Forbrukerinspektørene (FBI)". 

All our fact checks are free for all to use and equipped with embed-codes for easy reproduction. They are also distributed through the Norwegian news wire NTB. 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Several topics are covered and there does not seem to be a common theme, rather viral claims are fact checked as they grow popular.


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

We follow the IFCN Code of Principles, as well as the journalistic ethic guidelines of the Norwegian Press Association. Our staff is not allowed to do politics or participate in activities compromising our nonpartisanship.

We are completely open about our staffs background, listing both current and former staff here: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

In this section, we also give an in depth insight to our our company structure, economics, board of directors, e.t.c.

We also list in detail our supporters and partnerships in this section: https://www.faktisk.no/stott-oss

All our fact-checks generates statistical data in which we are transparent about, making it easy for anyone to scrutinize our work: https://www.faktisk.no/statistikk

We have also added a correction logg, which can be followed both on our statistics-section or by RSS-feed: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

Also our methods are explained in detail here: https://www.faktisk.no/metode

All these sections have been upgraded with more details and transparency since our initial application. 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

It does not appear as if the applicant support any side or take policy positions. The description of how the organisation is run is detailed and easy to read. Policies are clearly explained or linked to.


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

All our fact checks has its own section where we in detail explain every stage and use of sources in the particular fact check. In this way, they can review our methods, work and line of thinking. We are open about our sources and documentation, and share this openly by uploads, links and citations. 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Sources are clearly linked to.


done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

We explain in detail our structure and ownership - including how our owners finance us with annual grants - in this section: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

This section also clearly outlines our rules for non partisanship, independence and transparency.

We have also included a section explaining in detail the support and partnerships we have: https://www.faktisk.no/stott-oss

Both sections are main menu options on our front page. 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The sources of funding are detailed, and the type of organization is specified. As this is a fact-checking site owned by several media companies, I believe it should be regarded as a stand alone organization. Because the applicant has not provided an overview of spending for the year, this criteria is "partially compliant".


done 4a marked as Partially compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

We are completely open about our staffs background, listing both current and former staff here: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

In this section, we also give an in depth insight to our our company structure, economics, board of directors, e.t.c.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Authors are shown with biographies on the site.


done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Contact info is found both om our front page (footer) and in the "about us"-sections, which includes contact details to all staff members: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/


Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

At the bottom of the faktiskt.no page, there are contact information provided and links to facebook and twitter.


done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Our menu option "Methodology" brings you to our detailed methodology-section: https://www.faktisk.no/metode


Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The description of the faktisk.no methodology, provided in the method section is excellent. However, a complaint has reached the IFCN that highlights an area not clearly adressed by Faktisk.no. The complaint adresses the lack of description on what the difference is between "Delvis rett" (partly correct) and "Delvis feil" (partly wrong). One is positive and the other is negative, and the two categories could actually be considered equal. Therefore, Faktisk.no needs to clarify the difference.


done 5a marked as Partially compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

kontakt@faktisk.no (tip-mail)

www.facebook.com/faktisk

Facebook is our main channel for interaction with our readers, and where we actively encourage readers to submit claims to fact check. 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The descriptions on what readers can expect to be fact-checked is clearly explained in the method section. However, how readers can send fact-claims is not really explained at all on the website, but there is a link at the bottom of the site stating "please contact us if you want to give us credit, critique or send us a claim that you want us to fact-check".


done_all 5b marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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.

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Our correction policy is described in our methodology-section: https://www.faktisk.no/metode

In addition to making any changes or corrections in a fact-check into a separate section at the end of the fact-check (in example: https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/xeZ/nei-oslo-politiet-ble-ikke-bygget-ned-okonomisk-under-den-rodgronne-regjeringen ), we also have added a separate change/correction logg, which can be followed both on our statistics-section or by RSS-feed: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer


Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

There is a general corrections log, and all articles are accompanied by specific corrections log for that article. However a "correction policy" is not provided, rather a short description on that corrections can oocur and how the reader can find them.  I did not find any specific descriptions on how the audience can request a correction. 

Furthermore, a complaint has reached the IFCN concerning corrections. This complaint is about the content in a story about the history of skis. This particular claim highlights the need to clarify how a reader can contact Faktisk.no and  what routines the applicant then has regarding audience feedback.

For this reason I have chosen "Non compliant" here, and I would recommend that Faktisk.no creates a policy that also describes audience feedback and what can be expected if the audience finds that facts in a story are doubtful to them.


cancel 6a marked as Non compliant by Ester Appelgren.

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

Faktisk.no
24-Sep-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Our correction-log gives our readers easy access to every correction in every fact-check chronologically: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

There you can easily navigate to fact-checks with corrections, i.e.:

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/L2l/isarealet-ved-nordpolen-er-tilbake-pa-1979-niva

https://www.faktisk.no/faktasjekker/AnR/undersokelse-viser-at-hunder-kan-gjenkjenne-onde-mennesker


Ester Appelgren Assessor
02-Oct-2018 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

At the bottom of each article there is list of corrections if corrections have been made.


done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Ester Appelgren.