Faktograf.hr

Organization: Faktograf.hr
Applicant: Petar Vidov
Assessor: Milica Šarić
Conclusion and recommendations
on 05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

Milica Šarić wrote:

I recommend accepting the application of Faktograf, with potential minor changes in its correction transparency procedure.

on 05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

Milica Šarić 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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)
Faktograf is legally registered as an electronic media with the Croatian Agency for Electronic Media (AEM registry added as attachment). Faktograf was created as a joint project of Croatian Journalists' Association (HND) http://hnd.hr/eng/ and civil society organization Gong http://gong.hr/en/, with the main purpose of fact-checking. HND was formerly registered as Faktograf's publisher, but this was later changed to Gong now being the sole publisher, due to the need for simpler coordination regarding project grants which are Faktograf's main source of funding.
Files Attached
picture_as_pdf Knjiga_ElPublikacija... (348 KB)
Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

The applicant is a legally registered media that publish exclusively fact-checking content.


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Fact-checks of statements made by politicians are gathered here:

https://faktograf.hr/izjave/

Articles debunking popular untruths are gathered here:

https://faktograf.hr/provjera-tocnosti/

https://faktograf.hr/analize/


Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

The applicant does publish reports that evaluate distinct claims on the basis of their accuracy, though they also have some kind of “aktualno” category, which consists of opinion articles - here are just some of the latest articles:

https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/24/vladin-ured-za-udruge-krsi-zakon-zbog-zastite-ministra-pavica/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/30/zapoceto-jacanje-frontexa-oznacava-fokusiranje-europske-unije-na-zastitu-vanjskih-granica/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/31/dnevnohr-hrvatska-vlada-europskim-novcem-podrzava-sirenje-dezinformacija/

...

As for evaluation of distinct claims on the basis of their accuracy, the applicant has published 90 reports over three months, which makes the average almost 1 per day.


done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/02/predsjednicka-kandidatura-govor-cinjenice/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/09/18/jandrokovic-nismo-duzni-povjerenstvu-dostavljati-racune/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/08/27/skoro-od-2007-hrvatska-se-priblizila-eu-prosjeku-za-samo-dva-postotna-boda/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/06/21/matic-o-kolindi-grabar-kitarovic-i-plenkovicu-kao-kandidatima-za-ek-izvjestavaju-portali-tipa-dugo-selo-info/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/01/nino-raspudic-klimatska-kriza/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/10/04/notorne-gluposti-kresimir-misak/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/09/22/migrant-tramvaj-bicikl-francuska-zet-snimka/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/09/02/igra-huskanja-na-izbjeglice-na-portalu-dnevno/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/07/02/premijer-morawiecki-nije-potpisao-apel-protiv-5g-tehnologije-potvrdilo-nam-je-poljsko-ministarstvo-digitalnih-poslova/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/07/02/europol-teroristi-nemaju-u-planu-samo-ubijati-vec-i-polarizirati-nasa-drustva/


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 the opposition. We are focused on statements of great public interest or on statements that are in the public eye at the moment. We also debunk common untruths or misconceptions which achieve prominence on social media.

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. We have started to work more intently on debunking false information, as it started to appear more often within Croatian social media and in mainstream news media as well. Since April 2019 we have been debunking false information on social media as part of Facebook's Third Party Fact-Checker Program.




Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

The applicant's fact checks cover a variety of subjects and speakers and do not unduly concentrate on one side of the topic they fact-check. Due to greater accountability of decision makers, the applicant naturally covers more people and statements connected to the government.


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)

Statute of Gong (https://www.gong.hr/media/uploads/statut_gong_28.12.2018._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.

Faktograf is obliged to respect the same principles. We are not involved in political parties or in supporting political candidates. We base our work in the manner of professional and ethical journalism, devoid of the influence of various particular interests.

Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

The applicant sent Statute of its founding organization stating committement to independence and non-partisanship, with goal to encourage citizens to actively participate in political processes. 

Faktograf, as they state, is "obliged to respect the same principles" and not involve themselves in politics.


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months 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/

Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

Based on the sample of work, the applicant does link to the sources of the claim it is fact-checking and the evidence it uses to fact-check it. Sometimes the applicant archive the link and give the evidence that way, most probably in a fear of link being deleted. When no link is available, the applicant name the source and quote.


done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)
Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

On a page on its website the applicant states sources of funding, though from the beginning, not just the past year. (without amounts of grants, just names of funders)

On the same page the applicant explains spendings 2015-2018. It provided amounts of USD spent on research, communication etc, and how many % it holds within total spending.

On the same page the applicant explain its registration form and how it was founded.


done_all 4a marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)
Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

All authors and key actors behind the fact-checking project are clearly listed on the site and relevant biographies are included.


done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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

Faktograf.hr
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

http://faktograf.hr/kontakt/

Also, information about Faktograf's email, Twitter and Facebook contacts are published at the end of each article published on Faktograf's pages. 

Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

At the bottom of home page (footer) there is an option "contact us". By clicking on it the applicant's email address and phone number are available, as well as Twitter and Facebook accounts. (This footer is included in all website pages.)

Also, under each report there is a box calling readers to contact the applicant via email, Twitter or Facebook.


done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago
Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

The applicant explains its fact-checking methodology publicly and clearly in an accessible place - on a separate page, easily approached at website footer.


done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

At the end of each article, the following is posted (with links to our social media accounts), inviting readers to contact us:

"Imate prijedloge, pohvale ili kritike? Uočili ste neku izjavu za koju vjerujete da bi je Faktograf trebao obraditi? Želite nas upozoriti na neodgovorno ponašanje političara? Pišite nam na info@faktograf.hr ili nas kontaktirajte putem Twittera ili Facebooka".

General contact details for Faktograf can be found here:

https://faktograf.hr/kontakt/

Editor-in-chief's contact e-mail can be found here:

https://faktograf.hr/impressum/

Faktograf also cooperates with the regional news network N1, allowing their readers to suggest claims to fact-check via their own webpage: 

http://hr.n1info.com/

Examples of articles written after readers' questions were submitted: 

https://faktograf.hr/2019/04/08/rodna-ravnopravnost-po-postotku-zastupnica-u-europskom-parlamentu-hrvatska-je-u-samom-vrhu/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/02/25/kako-se-biraju-duznosnici-institucija-europske-unije-i-zasto-u-europskom-parlamentu-sjedi-zeljana-zovko/

https://faktograf.hr/2019/08/23/provjerite-jeste-li-preplatili-holding-ukupan-broj-kucanstava-i-iznos-preplata-odbijaju-reci-faktografu/


Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

Readers can send applicant claims to fact-check at the bottom of home page (footer), by clicking on an option "contact us". There the applicant's email address and phone number are available, as well as Twitter and Facebook accounts. (This footer is included in all website pages.)

Also, under each report there is a box calling readers to contact the applicant via email, Twitter or Facebook - for all complaints and comments, and also for sending claims.

On another page, the applicant made it clear what can be evaluated.


done_all 5b marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)
Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

On its website, the applicant explains its correction policy as in accordance with law on media, and pointed to the email through which the correction can be requested.


done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Milica Šarić.

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
14-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Examples of corrections:

In the original version of this text, it was incorrectly stated that narod.hr portal was manipulating the number of partisan pensions. An error occurred due to a misread of the published information which was pointed out to us by their staff, after which we have published the correction: https://faktograf.hr/2019/05/10/manipulacije-brojem-korisnika-partizanskih-mirovina/

In the original text, it was incorrectly stated that the Administration had been an integral part of the Ministry of Justice until 2011. One reader reached out to us via Twitter and has pointed out the mistake which was corrected and explained beneath the text:

https://faktograf.hr/2019/07/10/najavljena-rekonstrukcija-vlade-evo-koja-se-ministarstva-ne-bi-trebalo-dirati/


Milica Šarić Assessor
05-Nov-2019 (5 months ago)

The applicant did not provide (nor I found it myself) a proof the applicant has a public page with all corrections made. However the applicant did provide examples of corrections from the previous year:

- the first one can only be traced if you have a link to it or if you search the website with title (because of its address I believe it was published together with all other reports). In that correction they acknowledge the guilty and why the mistake was done.

- in the second example the applicant has sent, there was a minor mistake, that the applicant corrected with an asterisk.

I suggest to improve only transparency in corrections (N.B. for type of "serious" corrections as in the first example), so readers can be aware of the mistake.


done 6b marked as Partially compliant by Milica Šarić.

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.