Newschecker.in

Organization: Newschecker.in
Applicant: Rajneil R Kamath
Assessor: Kanchan Kaur
Edits made by the organization after this assessment

IFCN Staff wrote:

The applicant is a fact-checking division of a larger media house. The latter is a legally registered entity, working in content services.The applicant, that works exclusively on fact checking, has published fact checks regularly over the last few months, in about four languages. They have published over one fact check a week.

The fact checks by the applicant cover a range of topics, from all sides of the spectrum. The applicant has policies that prevent staff from active involvement in advocacy. It has shared a code of conduct that employees have to sign.

The applicant lists its sources at the end of each fact check. Within fact checks, too, it mentions whenever it has contacted any source and explains how it got to the source. Readers could easily replicate the fact check.

The applicant has clearly stated that it is a division of a for-profit company. It has also mentioned its primary source of income. Its website clearly lists its team with their biographies. This includes key personnel like the editor and the publisher.

The applicant's website has a Contact Us page with an email id. It does have a note in the footer encouraging readers to reach out, but is lost in the other information. The applicant's methodology is clearly explained, step by step on its website.

The applicant has a Contact Us page and has added a Google form to help applicants send complaints. It would help for the applicant to have a dedicated page to submit claims to fact check. Or, it could expand its Contact Us page. It would also help for the organisation to provide numbers of reader-submitted fact checks published

The applicant's website has a clearly marked corrections page that explains how claims are checked and explains how mistakes are handled. However, it would help for the applicant to provide a time frame to make corrections. The applicant has provided only one example because it says no other corrections have been requested.

The application may be accepted.


Conclusion and recommendations
on 04-Dec-2019 (4 months ago)

Kanchan Kaur wrote:

The applicant is a fact-checking division of a larger media house. The latter is a legally registered entity. The applicant has published fact checks regularly over the last few months, in about four languages. They have published over one fact check a week.

The fact checks by the applicant cover a range of topics, from all sides of the spectrum. The applicant has policies that prevent staff from active involvement in advocacy. It has shared a code of conduct that employees have to sign.

The applicant lists its sources at the end of each fact check. Within fact checks, too, it mentions whenever it has contacted any source and explains how it got to the source. Readers could easily replicate the fact check.

The applicant has clearly stated that it is a division of a for-profit company. It has also mentioned its primary source of income. Its website clearly lists its team with their biographies. This includes key personnel like the editor and the publisher.

The applicant's website has a Contact Us page with an email id. It does have a note in the footer encouraging readers to reach out, but is lost in the other information. The applicant's methodology is clearly explained, step by step on its website.

The applicant has a Contact Us page and has added a Google form to help applicants send complaints. It would help for the applicant to have a dedicated page to submit claims to fact check. Or, it could expand its Contact Us page.

The applicant's website has a clearly marked corrections page that explains how claims are checked and explains how mistakes are handled. The applicant has provided only one example because it says no other corrections have been requested.

The application may be accepted. 

on 04-Dec-2019 (4 months ago)

Kanchan Kaur recommended Accept


on 28-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)

Kanchan Kaur wrote:

The applicant is a fact-checking division of a larger media house. The latter is a legally registered entity.The applicant has published fact checks regularly over the last few months, in about four languages. They have published over one fact check a week.

The fact checks by the applicant cover a range of topics, from all sides of the spectrum. The applicant has policies that prevent staff from active involvement in advocacy. It has shared a code of conduct that employees have to sign.

The applicant lists its sources at the end of each fact check. Within fact checks, too, it mentions whenever it has contacted any source and explains how it got to the source. Readers could easily replicate the fact check.

The applicant has clearly stated that it is a division of a for-profit company. It has also mentioned its primary source of income. Its website clearly lists its team with their biographies. This includes key personnel like the editor and the publisher.

The applicant's website has a Contact Us page with an email id. It does have a note in the footer encouraging readers to reach out, but is lost in the other information. The applicant's methodology is clearly explained, step by step on its website.

The applicant has a Contact Us page and has added a Google form to help applicants send complaints. It would help for the applicant to have a dedicated page to submit claims to fact check. Or, it could expand its Contact Us page. It would also help for the organisation to provide numbers of reader-submitted fact checks published

The applicant's website has a clearly marked corrections page that explains how claims are checked and explains how mistakes are handled. However, it would help for the applicant to provide a time frame to make corrections. The applicant has provided only one example because it says no other corrections have been requested.

The application may be accepted.

on 28-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)

Kanchan Kaur recommended Accept


on 24-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)

Kanchan Kaur wrote:

The applicant is a fact-checking division of a larger media house. The latter is a legally registered entity. The applicant has published fact checks regularly over the last few months, in about four languages. They have published over one fact check a week.

The fact checks by the applicant cover a range of topics, from all sides of the spectrum. The applicant has policies that prevent staff from active involvement in advocacy. It has shared a code of conduct that employees have to sign.

The applicant lists its sources at the end of each fact check. Within fact checks, too, it mentions whenever it has contacted any source and explains how it got to the source. Readers could easily replicate the fact check.

The applicant has clearly stated that it is a division of a for-profit company. It has also mentioned its primary source of income. Its website clearly lists its team with their biographies. This includes key personnel like the editor and the publisher.

The applicant's website has a Contact Us page with an email id. It does have a note in the footer encouraging readers to reach out, but is lost in the other information. The applicant's methodology is clearly explained, step by step on its website.

The applicant has a Contact Us page and has added a Google form to help applicants send complaints. It would help for the applicant to have a dedicated page to submit claims to fact check. Or, it could expand its Contact Us page.

The applicant's website has a clearly marked corrections page that explains how claims are checked and explains how mistakes are handled. The applicant has provided only one example because it says no other corrections have been requested.

The application may be accepted. 

on 24-Oct-2019 (5 months ago)

Kanchan Kaur recommended Accept


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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Newschecker.in is an independent fact checking initiative of NC Media Networks Pvt Ltd (www.ncmn.in) and is a registered entity in India. NC Media Networks is a technology driven content services company providing content review, content creation and content startegy services. Our registration details can be found on the Ministry of Coorporate Affairs website (http://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/viewCompanyMasterData.do) using the Company Identification Number U92490DL2019PTC353700 

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf CERTIFICATE OF INCOR... (523 KB)
Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

The applicant is a fact-checking division of a larger media house. The larger media house is a legally registered entity which works in content services. The applicant division works exclusively on fact-checking. 


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Newschecker.in publishes 3 - 4 fact checks on an average each day. The entire site is dedicated to fact checking and all our articles fall under this category. Our facts checks can be found here:

https://www.newschecker.in/category/15750695/news/page/1

https://www.newschecker.in/category/15750695/news/page/11

https://www.newschecker.in/category/15751185/politics

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant has published fact checks regularly over the last few months, in about four languages. They have published over one fact check a week. 


done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Newschecker.in fact checks claims made by public representatives, personalities, political parties, media organisations, and users, pages and handles on social media. We follow a defined process for all fact checks, and do not discern between ideologies, sides and who indeed made the claim. If there's a claim, we fact check it. We also receive requests from the public to fact check claims.


Fact-Check of Media Reports

कोरेगांव मामले में 'वॉर एंड पीस' किताब को लेकर BBC, NDTV, AAJTAK जैसे बड़े मीडिया संस्थानों ने फैलाया भ्रम - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_12255240

कितना सही है Times Now का हौज़ काज़ी मामले में किया जा रहा दावा? - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_11444261

क्या इंडिया टुडे का एग्जिट पोल अनजाने में हुआ लीक? - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10859710


Fact-Check on Leaders

क्या इंग्लिश डिक्शनरी में शामिल हुआ ‘Modilie’ शब्द ? - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10879097

बीजेपी सांसद सत्यदेव पचौरी ने फैलाई फेक न्यूज़, शेयर किया इजरायली रक्षामंत्री का झूठा बयान - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_11979368


Fact-check of Celebrities

अमिताभ बच्चन ने गलत जानकारी के साथ शेयर किया NASA का 10 साल पुराना वीडियो - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_11364741

क्या पत्रकार पल्लव बागला ने बिना इजाज़त Getty Images को बेची ISRO की तस्वीरें? - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_12370888

अलका लाम्बा और जैनब सिकंदर ने शेयर किया भ्रामक वीडियो क्लिप,गणपति विसर्जन से इसका नहीं है कोई ताल्लुक - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_12391566


Fact-check of Viral Stories

RBI Did Not Notify The Closing Of 9 National Banks - https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_12641842

This Image Of Greta Thunberg And George Soros Is Photoshopped- https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_12636136

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The fact checks by the applicant cover a variety of topics. They do not concentrate on one side of the topic. 


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Newschecker.in committed and loyal only to the facts and truth and nothing else. We enforce and maintain a strict non-partisan policy and all fact checkers are expected to abide by it. While joining NC Media Networks, employees have to sign a Code of Conduct which ensures that they are not a part of any political organization and will be fair and objective in their reporting. In our fact checks, we stick solely to the evidence to/that lead us to the conclusion. While we understand that employees may have their own personal opinions, we ensure that it is not reflected in their fact checks and work at NC Media Networks as it goes through a three step review process before being published. We have also mentioned the same in our Code of Principles (https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10101765). While joining NC Meedia Networks, employees also sign a Code of Conduct which is part of their offer letter and attached to this. 

Files Attached
picture_as_pdf NC Media Networks Of... (119 KB) picture_as_pdf NC Media Networks Of... (119 KB)
Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant has policies that prevent staff from active involvement in advocacy. It has shared a code of conduct that employees have to sign.  


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

Newschecker.in uses a multitude of sources which is also mentioned in our fact checks so readers can also replicate our process and come to their own conclusions - if it widely differs from ours, we have an open correction policy and are always open to feedback.

- Data: We refer to official data sources or those published in reports by reputed organisations and also cite and link to the original data source(s)

- Quotes: we do not quote anonymous sources, and put what we receive on record. Incase an allegation is made against any person/organization, we also get an official response from them as well

- The Originator: We make attempts to reach out to people in question to get a proper verification

- Tools: Google Image Search, Yandex, Baidu, InVid, Amnesty, Archives.org, Suncalc.net, Google Earth Pro, geotagging etc for image and video search, geographical locations.

- Social Media posts and content

In each and every fact check, we reveal the sources and tools used. More on methodology can be read on our website (https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10104344)


Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant lists its sources at the end of each fact check. Within fact checks, too, it mentions whenever it has contacted any source and explains how it got to the source. Readers could easily replicate the fact check.  


done_all 3a marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

NC Media Networks Pvt Ltd is a for profit company that runs newschecker.in as an independent initiative with its own team and operations. Besides content review, the company also offers research and content creation services besides investing its own funds in building technologies to ease the fact checking process.

We work with an Indian social media network and offer fact checking services and earn a renumeration in return. This renumeration is used to pay salaries of fact checkers and cover other infrastructure and admin costs of the newschecker.in team.

We undertake other projects, but are clear that our clients don't have a say in the editorial policy of newschecker.in. We do not work with politicians, political parties and advocacy groups and also carefully consider which clients to work with to maintain our independence and integrity.

NC Media Networks is self funded and the initial capital was contributed by its directors Rajneil R Kamath and Anirudh Balakrishnan. We have not received outside funding. Our registration details can be found on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website (http://www.mca.gov.in/mcafoportal/viewCompanyMasterData.do) using the Company Identification Number U92490DL2019PTC353700


Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant has clearly stated that it is a division of a for-profit company. It has also mentioned its primary source of income, other than the main company. 


done_all 4a marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The newschecker.in team comprises of journalists, social media experts, public policy professionals and researchers. More details about the team can be found on our website

https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10114113 

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant has clearly listed the team in its website, with their biographies. This includes key personnel like the editor and the publisher.  


done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Readers can get in touch with us through our website and mailing us on checkthis@newschecker.in. We have also added a form on the Contact Us page, and every page on the website including fact checks in the footer has a note about how readers can contact us via email and encouraging them to reach out. Additionally, they can also tweet to us or message us on facebook and we reinforce this regularly on social media in our posts and updates. 

https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10423520

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant's website has a Contact Us page with an email id. It does have a note in the footer encouraging readers to reach out, but is lost in the other information. 


done 4c marked as Partially compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

We have followed a fixed methodology to maintain consistency. This can be accessed here: https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10104344

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant's methodology is clearly explained, step by step on its website; it is easily accessible. 


done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

Readers can get in touch with us through our website and mailing us on checkthis@newschecker.in. We have also added a form on the Contact Us page, and every page on the website including fact checks in the footer has a note about how readers can contact us via email and encouraging them to reach out. The form on the Contact Us page allows users to send complaints or feedback or submit claims. Additionally, they can also tweet to us or message us on facebook and we reinforce this regularly on social media in our posts and updates.

https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10423520

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

The applicant has a Contact Us page and has added a Google form to help applicants send complaints. It would help for the applicant to have a dedicated page to submit claims to fact check. Or, it could expand its Contact Us page.  It would also help for the organisation to provide numbers of reader-submitted fact checks published. 


done 5b marked as Partially compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago)

We have an open correction policy published on our website: https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10112867

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 4 months ago

The applicant's website has a clearly marked corrections page. The page explains how claims are checked and explains how mistakes are handled. However, it would help for the applicant to provide a time frame to make corrections. 


done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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

Newschecker.in
30-Sep-2019 (6 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

https://www.newschecker.in/article/news-detail/275_10856446

We have only had one correction so far. 

Kanchan Kaur Assessor
23-Oct-2019 (5 months ago) Updated: 5 months ago

The applicant has provided only one example because no other corrections have been requested.  


done 6b marked as Partially compliant by Kanchan Kaur.

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.