Organization: Raskrinkavanje
Applicant: Emir
Assessor: Ivana Jeremic
Edits made by the organization after this assessment

IFCN Staff wrote:

(2b) Nonpartisanship policy

The first comment in our application was about not having nonpartisanship policy on the website. We have published a policy concerning political activism into the "About" section of the website. Nonpartisanship policy can be found on the following link: https://raskrinkavanje.ba/o-raskrinkavanju

(5b) Claim submissions

The second comment was regarding the lack of a detailed explanation and guidance for readers on how fact-checkers will pick a suitable claim/media report. We have added an additional explanation for readers, on the same page where the claim submission form is located: https://raskrinkavanje.ba/sugestija

(4a) Funding Sources

Regarding the comments about financial information that we publish on our website, we want to stress several points:

The information published about "Raskrinkavanje" is the same as those that we publish for our other fact-checking web platform, "Istinomjer", which has so far been verified twice by the IFCN. The format, level of detail and visibility of this information on the website, for both "Istinomjer" and "Raskrinkavanje", has followed the comments previously received from IFCN in the verification process. Consequently, we think that the information we publish is sufficient to ensure the financial transparency of each of these projects and that it provides comprehensive information about their budgets and ways we are spending it. To that matter, we want to point out that several IFCN verified signatories disclose the same or less amount of information on their finances, particularly those established as projects of already existing legal entities (companies or organizations).

Moreover, our organization has several other projects besides these two fact-checking platforms, spanning across various portfolios (such as watch-dog, research, advocacy, activist-civic organizing and civic-sector coalition building) and addressing different target groups, goals and stakeholders. We keep these projects as separate and independent from each other as possible in order to preserve the impartiality of their respective methodologies and editorial policies. For the same reason, we brand each of these projects separately, focusing on their specific goals and areas, rather than keeping them all under "Zašto ne" website and "brand". This practice, which we have maintained since the beginning of our work, would be hampered by publishing "Zašto ne" documents on "Raskrinkavanje" website, or on outlets of our other projects. All this considered, we do not think that this recommendation received in the last review process would be a good approach for us. 

Conclusion and recommendations
on 03-Jan-2019 (4 years ago)

Ivana Jeremic wrote:

Raskrinkavanje has a lot of potentials, and their work so far has been very good and with a lot of impact among readers in Bosnia. If they follow instructions, without any problem they'd fulfill all the criteria and become one of the signatories. Mainly, I'd suggest making it easier for their readers to differentiate their work from the work of Zašto ne and their finances as well. 

on 03-Jan-2019 (4 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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Raskrinkavanje is a fact-checking project developed by the Civic Association "Why not" (Udruženje građana “Zašto ne”). CA “Why Not” is a legal entity registered in the register of civic associations within the Ministry of Justice of FBiH on January 9th 2001 under No. 56, Book 1 of the register, with registration number 03-054-992/97-2. Scanned copy of the Decision on the Registration, is in the attachment.


Files Attached
picture_as_pdf CA Why Not - Registr... (929 KB)
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Raskrinkavanje is a separate project of Zašto ne, fully dedicated to fact-checking of media content.

done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

Criterion 1b
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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago


Raskrinkavanje has published 170 articles in last 3 moths (September-November). Articles are categorized as: regular fact-checks, occasional topical analysis of media reporting and weekly reviews that include an overview of what we wrote about in the previous 7 days.

We use a system with 15 ratings for our fact checks, developed in a way which covers different kinds of disinformation we encounter in the media.

Fact-checks are categorized by the ratings as defined by the methodology. One fact-check can have multiple ratings, so one article can appear in multiple categories.:

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-lazna-vijest - fake news

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-prenosenje-laznih-vijesti?page=1 - transmitting fake news

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-spin - spin

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-dezinformacija - disinformation

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-manipulisanje-cinjenicama - manipulation of facts

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-pseudonauka - pseudoscience

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-teorija-zavjere - conspiracy theory

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-pristrasno-izvjestavanje - biased reporting

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-greska - error in reporting

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-prikriveno-oglasavanje - hidden advertisment

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-klikbejt?page=1 - clickbait

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-neprovjereno - unverified

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analize-sa-clancima-kategorisanim-kao-demantirano - corrected (“denied” would be a direct translation - referes to a correction published by the media after the fact check)

We also use other types of content categorization, such as:

Archiving and sorting all the debunked articles and their sources

So far we have analyzed 800 articles or social media items, from 820 media outlets. Each article is copied and archived on the website and each media outlet has its profile with all available information (impressum, url, ownership, related social media pages). Article database is available at: https://raskrinkavanje.ba/clanci and the media database is available at: https://raskrinkavanje.ba/mediji?page=1

Raskrinkavanje has a “red flag” and “high risk” lists of media whose content we analyzed:

Red flag - https://raskrinkavanje.ba/red-flag-mediji

Each media that has been an original source of fake news gets on this list for each such report. Each media that has at least three ratings for “transmitting fake news", automatically gets on this list. If the media doesn’t receive such rating again in the period of 3 months (i.e. it doesn’t not create or repost any fake news), it is taken off the list. If the media outlet publishes a correction in accordance to the standards prescribed in the methodology, it is removed from the list.

High risk - https://raskrinkavanje.ba/high-risk-mediji

High-risk list includes the media that potentially publish reports of questionable credibility. The media which have published at least three articles that had receive any rating other than “fake news” or “transmitting fake news” in the last three months, get on this list automatically. 

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Raskrinkavanje exclusively published a couple of reports per week, placing them into several categories.

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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Given that Raskrinkavanje uses about a dozen different ratings, it would be hard to provide examples of consistency and coherent approach for each individually. We're providing here examples of fact checks for claims which pertain to ethnic and/or political issues, as an area where non-partisan approach is most relevant in BiH.

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/sutra-lagumdzija-u-izetbegovicevoj-diplomatiji (targeting political parties SDA and SDP)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/saff-u-odbrani-sda (targeting critics of the leading SDA party)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/izetbegovic-i-ss-kad-sto-puta-ponovljena-laz-ostane-laz (targeting SDA)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/dnevnik-i-poskok-o-komsicevoj-fotografiji (targeting head of political party DF)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/lazne-vijesti-iz-16-vijeka (targeting head of political party SBB)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/milorada-dodika-nije-uhapsila-sipa (targeting head of political party SNSD)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/rtrs-dokle (targeting protestors/critics of SNSD)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/srpska-info-tri-puta-o-pavicevoj-nepostojecoj-ostavci (targeting head of political party DNS)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/balkan-list-kad-su-i-lazi-nepismene (targeting head of political party HDZ)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/portal-bnn-promocija-bps-a-i-napadi-na-opoziciju-u-kantonu-sarajevo (targeting political party NS)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/sputnik-izmislio-nastup-reufa-bajrovica-u-americkom-kongresu (targeting political party GS)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/napadi-na-muslimane-manipulativno-prenosenje-starih-vijesti (targeting Serbs)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/lazni-terorizam-i-eksperti-koji-to-nisu (targeting Bosniaks / Muslims)

https://raskrinkavanje.ba/analiza/hajka-na-izbjeglice-ne-prestaje (targeting migrants)

In addition to using fact-checking to provide accurate information about the topics misrepresented in the analyzed articles, each of our analysis also tracks the whole process of creation, dissemination and modifications of analysed misinformation. This includes identifying the source of disinformation, finding all the reposts of the same article or incorrect claim where it appears in other media, and rating them all accordingly in the analysis we publish. Additionally, large percentage of the articles/claims we cover are reported to us by our readers and decisions on what we will or won’t analyze are based on our methodology. Both of these factos reduce the possibility of process being influenced by our personal views and preferences, or of nitpicking which media sources would or would not be rated and analyzed.  

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Raskrinkavanje does cover various topics and different media outlets representing all sides in Bosnia. I've noticed a couple of reports having a bit of harsh language with an op-ed tone, I'd suggest trying to avoid having authors opinion on the article that is being fact-checked.

done 2a marked as Partially 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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

No one working in Raskrinkavanje should or does engage in partisan political activity or make contributions to candidates or advocacy organizations. We do not have a written clause which would forbid such engagement to our employees, but we do inform each new team member that this is the policy of our organization and make sure that he or she is not an active party member or activist for any party/candidate.

Our previous and current activities, performed within Raskrinkavanje, Istinomjer and other projects of our organization, have always been independent from any political influence. Our work is solely funded by international organizations and embassies, who share our belief in the objectivity and impartiality.

As an organization, we engage in promoting government transparency and political accountability, so we always did and always will support policies and legislation that helps Bosnian society move towards more transparent and accountable governance, regardless of which political party or person introduces these policies or legislation. Since strengthening media literacy is one of our goals as a media fact checking project, we are also open for cooperation with any institution and/or decision maker who works on media freedom and media literacy policies in BiH. This, again, applies to all and any relevant actors regardless of their political background or party affiliation.

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

I haven't found any evidence of Raskrinkavanje nor Zašto ne endorsing any candidate or political party. From what was written in the application, they do have a strict policy concerning political activism, however, there is no evidence on their website nor do their fact-checkers sign the agreement that prevents their political engagement. I'd suggest having those rules published on their website so the public can be assured that any political involvement is not permitted.

done 2b marked as Partially 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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Ratings we use are based on determining relevant facts about claims made in the media reports we analyze. Each fact-checking analysis has clearly identified sources and links to them wherever available. If data is used which is not already present on the web, we upload the relevant documents and link to them in the analysis. Every person we contact as a source is quoted precisely and accurately. If changes to quotes are made for brevity or clarity, they are always verified with the initial source.

Along with the sources, each fact check contains a clear explanation of how each information was obtained and how that informed our decision of the rating.

Among the sources used in the research, the following should be noted:

Official data and statistics

Responses and data from official institutions

Relevant media sources

Official statements of relevant persons or institutions

Researches of relevant institutions or individuals

Experts' opinions

Legal acts and official documents of different types

Original research conducted by our team members

Information obtained by using various data verification tools

Other verified and relevant sources

Our policy regarding sources is included in the methodology, published on the link below:


Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Raskrinkavanje has a detailed explanation of their methodology and sources on their page.

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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

They have information about their spendings and donors but there are no documents, such as financial reports, provided as proof to what is claimed to be a financial situation. I'd suggest linking numbers to actual projects. Also, there is only information about Raskrinkavanje's donors and financial reports of Zašto ne, should be included as well, since they are the owners.

done 4a marked as Partially compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

Criterion 4b
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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Names and biographies are published on their page. I suggest adding their role within Raskrinkavanje project since it is not clear who is the editor or the person in charge of the different fact-checking process.

done_all 4b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.

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

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

There are the email address and option for readers to suggest media content for fact-checking. I suggest adding a line within Impressum which clearly explains to their readers or subjects of their reports on how to send comments and compliance.

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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

They have a very strict and detailed methodology. 

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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago
Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

They have a very good form, however, it lacks a detailed explanation and guidance for readers on how fact-checkers will pick a suitable claim/media report.

done 5b marked as Partially 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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago


(Correction policy is available under the subtitle “Ispravka netačnih navoda”)

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

It misses a time frame, which should be added. 

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.

20-Dec-2018 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Raskrinkavanje gives all media whose articles we analyse a chance to comment, provide explanations and information relevant for the analysis, both before and after it’s published. If in the process we learn that any part of our assessment was incorrect, we correct the mistake and visibly and clearly mark the correction. If we receive a complaint we find not to be grounded in facts, we publish the request for correction with the explanation of why a correction is not issued. These are some examples:


For this analysis we had a series of conversations with the owner of website “Životni stil”, Tarik Cifrić, who published the false news we debunked. In the process, we realized that more than one person is talking to us posing as him. At one point he admitted to it, claiming that his phone had been taken by the owner of another fake news website, Aldin Širanović, and that he talked with us on his behalf.

Širanović interpreted this part of the text as our claim that we’ve talked to him and requested that it’s removed from the article. We added a note (highlighted in a text box) where we explained the nature of his complaint and highlighted one more time that we were reporting on what we were told by the owner of “Životni stil” and that we haven’t presented his claim as an accurate information.


The original disinformation stated that the Student Parliament of Sarajevo University “sent a letter to the embassy of Portugal in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, requesting a removal of an inaccurate map of BiH from a park in Lisbon. In our analysis we wrote that this was made up, as Portugal does not have an embasssy in BiH, while the embassy in Serbia (which covers diplomatic relations with BiH) confirmed to us that they haven’t received any such letter.

We were subsequently contacted by the SPUS president who provided a screenshot of the mail he considered to have had sent to the embassy, but was in fact sent to a defunct email address and hasn’t arrived anywhere. We corrected the text, replaced a claim that “SPUS did not send a letter” with an explanation that they did send a letter to a nonfunctional email address, and added a text box with the note of correction made and the screenshot provided.

Ivana Jeremic Assessor
02-Jan-2019 (4 years ago) Updated: 4 years ago

Their correction policy was fully applied in the provided reports. 

done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Ivana Jeremic.