Faktograf

Organization: Faktograf.hr
Applicant: Petar Vidov
Assessor: Ivana Jeremic
Edits made by the organization after this assessment

IFCN Staff wrote:

Faktograf:

Published a breakdown of its finances for 2015-2017 on its website http://faktograf.hr/metodologija/. Compliance with criterion (4a) is now complete.

Added a phone number to its contact page

Added a call-out to readers at the bottom of every fact check inviting them to send claims to check. Compliance with criterion (5b) is now complete

Published an explanation of its corrections policy on its webiste http://faktograf.hr/impressum/. Compliance with criterion (6) is now complete.


Conclusion and recommendations
on 18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Ivana Jeremic wrote:

Faktograf fulfils most of the criteria. It has a clear methodology of fact-checking of the statements. Since it is a project based on the principles of journalists’ objectivity and fairness my conclusion, having in mind all the examples and evidences sent, is that Faktograf represents a good candidate and should be accepted with minor changes which can improve their transparency. Along with Istinomer and Istinomjer, Faktograf is a pioneer of fact-checking in the Balkans.

on 18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Ivana Jeremic 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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Faktograf is legally registered as an electronic media with the Croatian Agency for Electronic Media (AEM registry added in the document sent to factchecknet@poynter.org). Faktograf is a joint project of Croatian Journalists' Association (HND) http://hnd.hr/eng/ and civil society organization GONG http://gong.hr/en/, created with the main purpose of fact-checking.

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf 1a - Knjiga_ElPublik... (332 KB)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Faktograf is registered as an electronic media. From its website presentation it is clear that it is dedicated strictly to fact-checking of public officials statements.


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Faktograf publishes reports more than 4 times a week approximately with one exception in the last 3 months when it took more than 10 days. An overall look shows the outlet fits in the criteria.


done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Ten fact-checks proving the consistency of our fact-checking:

http://faktograf.hr/2017/01/13/grabar-kitarovic-mobbing-mediji/

http://faktograf.hr/2017/02/15/kolinda-grabar-kitarovic-ne-smijemo-a-priori-osudivati/

http://faktograf.hr/2017/03/08/zekanovic-istanbulska-konvencija/

http://faktograf.hr/2017/04/12/plenkovic-lex-agrokor-podravka-adris-atlantic/

http://faktograf.hr/2017/05/17/grmoja-zupanije-hdz-spin/

http://faktograf.hr/2017/03/30/bernardic-minimalna-placa-blokirani/ http://faktograf.hr/2016/08/26/milanovic-sdp-red-rast-zaposlenost/

http://faktograf.hr/2017/03/14/miroslav-simic-hrvatska-broj-pobacaj/

http://faktograf.hr/2016/03/29/vujcic-politika-me-ne-moze-smijeniti/ http://faktograf.hr/2017/03/20/bernardic-glas-u-slavoniji-ne-vrijedi-jednako-kao-u-dalmaciji/

We fact-check statements of top officials, members of government, members of parliament and other elected officials and deputies, including local authorities. We fact-check claims made by the members of ruling parties as well as by the opposition. We are focused on statements of great public interest or on statements that are in the public eye at the moment.

We maintain coherent standards across fact-checks, regardless whether it's a claim of the ruling politician or opposition. However, our researches are more focused on the government members and members of influential groups because their decisions have greater impact on everyday lives of the citizens.

In every fact-check we have the same procedure – we give link on the public statement and then we try to determine the truth by comparing what is said with documents, registers, statistics, court decisions, articles previously published on this topic or the opinion of eminent experts.

We have five grades – from “Ni f od Fakta“ that stands for statements that are completely untrue to “Fakt“, meaning that the statement is completely based on facts. Grades are explained on our website http://faktograf.hr/sto-su-ocjene/ Grade for every statement is placed in the corner of the picture added to the article.

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Faktograf is fulfilling the criteria. Articles cover various topics and involve both ruling officials and opposition leaders. As explained in the application Faktograf uses the same system of analyses in the articles which gives it structure that maintains the standard of objectivity.


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Statute of Croatian Journalists Association (http://hnd.hr/dokumenti) states that HND is an independent non-profit organization, free of influences from political parties or the government.

Statute of GONG (http://gong.hr/media/uploads/statut_gong_17.12.2015._final.pdf) states that GONG is non-partisan and independent organization, founded in 1997 to encourage citizens to actively participate in political processes. Its goal is promoting and elevating human and civil rights, as well as encouraging and empowering citizens to participate in political processes.

Being joint project of HND and GONG, Faktograf is obliged to respect the same principles. We are not involved in political parties or in supporting political candidates.

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Even though there is not an official statement at the web presentation of faktoraf.hr that covers this topic, since articles concern both officials and opposition representatives it is clear that the signatory is not advocating for any other cause than fact-checking itself. Since it’s a project of GONG and Croatian Journalist Association in which statute states that it is strictly forbidden to be politically involved faktograf.hr has to respect that principle too.


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

We choose statements on the basis of relevance or interest for particular topic in public. We start with providing link to the statement and then, as can be seen from the examples provided above, give links on every document, registry or other source that we use in checking the truthfulness of the statement. Readers can use those links to establish the correctness of our conclusions. If we cannot provide a hyperlink to the source, we name the source and quote it in detail.

Sources that are relevant for our fact-checks are: official documents like statements from the institutions, laws, statistics; domestic and international relevant organizations' reports; relevant media. More on our methodology on a following links: http://faktograf.hr/metodologija/

and

http://faktograf.hr/sto-su-ocjene/

We use the similar method in our “Promises“ section, determining the fulfillment of the promises that were given before the elections. We compare that promises with the government results and grade it from “broken promise“ to ”fulfilled“. 

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Faktograf has a fair methodology and it is very well explained for their readers at the website section named “methodology.” It shows what kind of sources are being used such as press releases, official documents, FOIA, other organization articles and research etc.


done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

It can be improved by publishing financial records per year, so the public can easily access more information on money spending and money given to the Faktograf.


done_all 4a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Team members and their biographies are listed at the webpage.


done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

There is only an office email address. It may be better if there would be an official telephone number as well.


done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

There is a step by step explained methodology at the “methodology” webpage section. It gives a fair overview how Faktograf chooses statements and the methodology behind the fact-checking.


done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

http://faktograf.hr/kontakt/ or https://www.facebook.com/faktografhr/?fref=nf. We are currently working on cooperation with N1 television with the purpose to establish a new platform for readers where they can contact us and submit claims for fact-checking.

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

There is no clear explanation at the webpage. It uses social media and other media platforms to promote the idea of reader’s suggestions. It can be improved by putting it on their webpage as well.


done_all 5b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

It is only stated that complaints and comments are based on the Law on media. It should be a bit more detailed for those who are not familiar with the procedure.


done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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

Faktograf.hr
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
18-Sep-2017 (2 years ago)

Examples show that there is a fair policy of article corrections and comments.


done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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.