TjekDet

Organization: TjekDet.dk
Applicant: Thomas Hedin
Assessor: Ester Appelgren

Background

.

Assessment Conclusion

This application is both an application for renewal and an application for a new organization. As of August 2020, Tjekdet has become a stand-alone non-profit organization. It is no longer part of Mandag Morgen. During the summer, I assessed Tjekdet while it was still owned by Monday Morgen. This assessment has been complemented with a smaller additional assessment due to the ownership change. I have tried to make the additional assessment clear by stating "Assessment after ownership change" and "Original Assessment".

I believe that Tjekdet is an impressive fact-checking initiative and that the new status in terms of ownership will not affect the journalistic output in any negative way, rather the contrary. The status of a non-profit news organization will make them even more credible.

My assessment is that they are compliant with all criteria.

on 24-Aug-2020 (1 year ago)

Ester Appelgren assesses application as Compliant

A short summary in native publishing language

.

Section 1: Eligibility to be a signatory

To be eligible to be a signatory, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 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.
  • 1.2 The team, unit or organization is set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking.
  • 1.3 The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application. For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track. Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.
  • 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.
  • 1.5 The applicant’s editorial output is not, in the view of the IFCN, controlled by the state, a political party or politician.
  • 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.

Criteria 1.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain where on your website you set out information about your organization’s legal status and how this complies with criteria. Attach a link to the relevant page of your website.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

It is stated in several places that TjekDet.dk is owned by the registered independent and non-profit organization “Foreningen TJEKDET - National portal for bekæmpelse of fake news” (translates to “The Organization TjekDet - National portal for combating fake news”). This organization has solely the purpose to operate the fact-checking media.

https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#ejerforhold

https://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#mission

On the "about"-page the official company registration number is stated and there is a link to the official company registration:: https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/visenhed?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&language=da

It should be noted that the site changed its legal status on August 1st. The site no longer has any organizational connection to its previous owner (the commercial media Mandag Morgen ApS). All articles and most of the staff are now a part of the new organization.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Assessment after ownership change:

Since August 2020, Tjekdet is no longer owned by Mandag Morgen. Instead it has become a non-profit organization and part of Foreningen Tjekdet (The Association Check it out). Relevant links are provided and information is given in several places of the new non-profit status. The chairman of the board for Tjekdet is an editor in chief at Mandag morgen.

Original assessment before ownership change: 

Tjekdet belongs to the Danish media company Mandag Morgen, and is thus a distinct team within a legally registered organization. This is information is visible already in the headline of the website. Information about ownership and status is also available in the about section.


done_all 1.1 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 1.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please answer the following questions – (see notes in Guidelines for Application on how to answer)

 1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?
 2. How many people work or volunteer in the organization and what are their roles?
 3. What different activities does your organization carry out?
 4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Re 1: TjekDet.dk was launched in November 2016 by its former owner Mandag Morgen ApS. This was done in connection with the heated debate and the use of the words fake news and the general focus on misinformation in the public debate at that time. Mandag Morgen took on the task of establishing the only fact-checking media in Denmark as a public service-initiative.

Re 2: The number of editorial staff at TjekDet.dk is currently six - from September 1st seven being: One editor-in-chief, three full-time journalists and three paid researchers (students). The board of the organization consists of five persons. Most administrative tasks have been outsourced. List and biographies of the current six staff members can be found here: https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#redaktionen. List of the board members can be found here: https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#bestyrelsen

Re 3: The main purpose of the organization is to operate the fact-checking media TjekDet, be available for courses in misinformation and disinformation and accommodate invitations to participate in panel debates and mostly scientific projects within the framework of the topic of fake news.

Re 4: Consolidate the new organization financially. It is also the ambition to the extent the mission of fact-checking media by establishing a broad knowledge bank on www.tjekdet.dk about misinformation and disinformation. This will among other things contain learning material for children and young people (students), an overview and continuously write about scientific studies within misinformation and disinformation.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Assessment after ownership change:

The about section is very informative and structured in an accessible manner. The aims and operations of the organization is clearly stated in the about section.  

Original assessment: 

Tjekdet is entirely marketed as a fact-checking initiative, while other parts of Mandag Morgen has different purposes. The application text is informative on the history of Tjekdet. The same information is available in the about section, yet in a more nestled manner. It would be very nice if Tjekdet in the future put some of this information in a "history of Tjekdet" part of the about page. 


done_all 1.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 1.3
Proof you meet criteria
- The applicant has published an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the date of application.
- For applicants from countries with at least 5 or more verified signatories need to have at least a fact check a week over the twelve months of publishing track.
- Consult to factchecknet@poynter.org for confirmation.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

From February 1st until the days of making this application TjekDet.dk has published 71 fact-checks. Guides and other perspectival articles are not included.

Files Attached
description IFCNdokNEWURL2.xlsx (50 KB)
Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Assessment after ownership change:

At the time of this assessment the "new" organization has existed for two weeks. During this time, seven fact checks have been published. This implies that the organization keeps up the same pace as before the ownership change. 

Original assessment:

For the five month period, the signatory states they published 57 fact-checks (Feb - June), ie. 3 fact checks a week. From January to June (present date), the applicant produced 100 stories (including fact-checks).


done_all 1.3 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 1.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous three months. No additional information required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The stories produced by Tjekdet are very neat, easy to understand and contains lots of information in the text, in diagrams or images. The fact-checking format is clear and easy to grasp. It is a pleasure to read these stories!

Obviously, the majority of the fact-checks during this time period concern aspects related to the Corona crisis. Such stories could easily be labeled as in the public interest, and they relate to the welfare and well being of individuals, however many stories are not primarily about the Corona crisis, but other topics that have been framed as Corona relevant. For example, a story is about the correctness of how the prime minister is using the Danish language in a sort of anglified way, following statements where she used terms such as "lock-down" and "open up" (translated) instead of more commonly used expressions in the Danish language. This story is primarily not about Corona, yet very much related to the crisis.

It might be questionable if some stories are in the interest of the public in terms of well being for the Danish people. For example the fact-check about Donald Trump's mother might not be very interesting in this sense. Here, the conclusion is that it cannot  be verified if his mother has said certain negative things on him entering politics or not. Such as story is however entertaining, and the fact check clarifies that the Danish people take a great interest in such topics.

To summarize, the majority of the fact-checks during the past three months are all somehow in the public interest. Many of them relate to aspects of the corona crisis which is clearly about the well being of individuals and the society, but there are also stories in the public interest focused on other topics. 


done_all 1.4 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 1.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please explain any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship your organization has to the state, politicians or political parties in the country or countries you cover. Also explain funding or support received from foreign as well as local state or political actors over the previous financial year.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

TjekDet has never been affiliated or had any kind of institutional relationships with political parties or politicians. Before August 1st 2020 the owner was a traditional independent commercial media company (Mandag Morgen ApS). Since August 1st 2020 the owner is the independent non-profit organization “Foreningen TjekDet”. Neither the staff nor members of the board have any kind of political affiliation

Since August 1st the funding of TjekDet comes from two main sources:

An extraordinary state emergency media fund for film, TV and other media organizations that have been particularly hard hit financially due to the corona crises. The Organization TjekDet receives 230,000 dollars covering the period August to December 2020. And another 400,000 dollars in 2021. The funds have been granted following an application for continued operation and development of the politically and commercially independent fact-checking media TjekDet. https://kum.dk/nyheder-og-presse/pressemeddelelser/nyheder/ekstraordinaer-haandsraekning-paa-20-mio-kr-klar-til-film-og-tv-branchen/1/1/

Since 2018 TjekDet has been appointed as third party fact-checker for Facebook, which continuously provides revenues from social media. Until August 1st 2020 these revenues

Since 2017 (under the former owner Mandag Morgen ApS) TjekDet received grants from three different public funds. In all cases, these grants were provided without conditions that could compromise or in anyway have influence on the editorial freedom.

In the period of April 1st 2017-April 1st 2020 TjekDet received financial support for media innovation by the Ministry of Culture https://slks.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/0_SLKS/Dokumenter/Medier/Mediestoette/Innovationspuljen_2017/Liste_over_tilskudsmodtagere_Innovationspuljen_1._ansoegningsrunde_2017.pdf (see "Mandag Morgen")

In the period of September 2018-September 2019 The European Parliament Media Fund in 2018 approved an application for a one-year grant for independent fact-checking journalism. This grant was shared with four other (IFCN-) fact-checking initiatives across four EU countries. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/tenders/2018-list-of-grants-awarded.pdf

In the period of January 2019-June 2019 The European Council of the Danish Parliament acknowledged an application for two voters meetings and editorial content (fact-checking) in connection with the European Parliament elections.

The economic foundation is clearly described on the follow page: http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Assessment after ownership change:

The signatory clearly states that they do not have relationships with political parties and politicians and clearly accounts for their sources of funding, both in the application and on their website. 

Original assessment: 

The applicant explains their position well. Furthermore, the applicant is transparent about funding and the role in the media landscape on it's webpage.


done_all 1.5 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 1.6
Proof you meet criteria
If you confirmed the organization receives funding from local or foreign state or political sources, provide a link to where on your website you set out how you ensure the editorial independence of your work.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

These details can be found in several places in the “About section”:

http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#mission

TjekDet.dk
07-Jul-2020 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

These details can be found at the bottom of this about-page on TjekDet.dk: https://www.mm.dk/tjekdet/artikel/omtjekdet. In order to meet transparency we link to the individual funds.

The pages linked to (European Parliament and Kulturministeriet) had been moved. Links changed and page numbers are stated where the grants appears.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Yes, there are links on the website to different funding agencies. However, the link to the European parliament is a dead link and the link to Kulturministeriet contains a blank page.


done_all 1.6 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.
Ester Appelgren Assessor
20-Aug-2020 (1 year ago)

Yes, there are links on the website to different funding agencies. 


done_all 1.6 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Section 2: A commitment to Non-partisanship and Fairness

To be compliant on nonpartisanship and fairness, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 2.1 The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Criteria 2.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please share links to 10 fact checks published over the past year that you believe demonstrate your non-partisanship.
Please briefly explain how the fact checks selected show that (I) you use the same high standards of evidence for equivalent claims, (II) follow the same essential process for every fact check and (III) let the evidence dictate your conclusions.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Initially, please note that we are fully transparent on how many times we have fact checked the various political parties (and their politicians). A statistic is available here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/statistik

Also, the editorial guidelines of the reach, importance of claims and statement on how we select claims to fact-check is thoroughly stated here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet

TjekDet.dk is a part of the established weekly magazine Mandag Morgen (Monday Morning) which follows the press ethical rules in Denmark. English translation here: http://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/

These rules states that it is the duty of the media to publish information correctly and promptly, Information which may be prejudicial or insulting or detract from the respect in which individuals should be held, shall be very closely examined before publication, attacks and replies should, where this is reasonable, be published together and in the same way, a clear distinction shall be drawn between factual information and comments, the form and content of headlines and subheadlines shall be substantiated by the article or publication in question, incorrect information shall be corrected on the editors’ own initiative etc.

Also, as a verified signatory of IFCN from since April 2018 the site has followed the IFCN code of conduct.

In order to protect claim holders in a fact check it is always up for consideration whether the claim holder should be refered to by name. This in order to protect a claim holder that might not be aware of the consequences of a statement etc.

TjekDet especially focus on claims on social media, which have been shared substantially. Therefore, statements not only come from politicians or other prominent decisionmakers, but people who have many followers on social media or who have obtained viral attention with their claim can be subject to a fact-check.

TjekDet must always only seek claims that have broad attention and in that way be a politically balanced media, where fact-check articles never express an opinion.

TjekDets fact-checking is always based on science-based facts/documentation or scientists interpretation and assessment thereof. At least two researchers should evaluate a claim – except where this is not possible because of lack of scientists within the field of the fact check.

This also why you will not find fact-checks on TjekDet where conclusions or stated facts are not supported by independent researchers - or in some cases other independent qualified sources.

The sources evaluating the claims are always clearly presented with full name, profession, place of employment, normally also photo of the source and generally also (link to) small bio of the source. This gives the reader transparency.

The source to a claim is always contacted and asked for comments – offered to respond.

In general, a fact-checking article always follow the same pattern. Typically, first a fact box with a condensate of the claim, the fact check's overall conclusion and explanation of the conclusion. Next the articles thoroughly explain the claim, where and in which context it is put forward, by whom (if possible to identify the claim holder) followed by an immediate evaluation on the claim based on experts conclusions. This first section is followed by in-depth background and interviews with (at least two) experts or other qualified sources and the basis of their conclusions. We strive to link to relevant scientific documentation which supports the conclusions of the experts. Finally, the claim holder (where it has been possible to identify) is asked for comments and offered the possibility of explaining his or her reasons and/or documentation.

This is often not followed if the fact-check concerns an image where we cannot locate the persons behind the image. In these cases the article instead follows "an educational flow", where we step-by-step explains how we have fact-checked the background and origin of the image. The purpose of this flow is to provide the readers with tools which the user in the future can use to fact-check other doubtfull images they might see on the internet.

Note: In some cases, a claim-box (including graphic expression of the conclusion) is omitted at the beginning of the article. This happens where TjekDet believes that such a box will not derive attention from significant nuances.

Examples:

EX 1:

1st May 2020: No, flu vaccines will not test false positives for corona in the white tents https://www.tjekdet.dk/nej-influenzavaccinerede-vil-ikke-teste-falsk-positiv-for-corona-i-de-hvide-telte

Comment: The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal.

In this case the claim holder was not interested in participating in the article. In this case the claim holder therefore is not cited by name. In cases where the claim holder do not wish to participate our ethical guidelines sets out that we generally observe to protect claim holders where these are not public figures, generally not well-known public figures and/or generally not active in the public debate. However, in cases where it is obvious for practically everyone who the claim holder is these latter guidelines are disregarded..

Two experts are evaluating the claim.

We ensure to include nuances to the claim – i.e. stating that the claim holder partly can be UNINTENTIONALLY right (re: "However, it cannot be excluded that in some cases the PCR test will confuse Sars-CoV-2 with similar types of viruses that have genetic similarities").

EX 2:

21st April 2020: Here is the story behind the disturbing image of 11 ladybugs in the mouth of a dog https://www.tjekdet.dk/her-er-historien-bag-foruroligende-billede-af-11-mariehoens-i-munden-paa-en-hund

Comment: The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary.

In the article we state that the claim circulates in a chain letter. Hence, we cannot locate the claim holder.

This article exemplifies how, despite finding a central source of the claim, we still include at least two experts to evaluate the claim. We practically never cite other media for important facts. This is also why we in this article have an interview with the American vet who took the photo in the Facebook post we are fact-checking here.

EX 3:

24th March 2020: Can nail polish and artificial nails save on coronavirus? https://www.tjekdet.dk/kan-neglelak-og-kunstige-negle-gemme-paa-coronavirus

Comment: The claim (subject) was not agenda setting in established media, but achieved great viral exposure (considering the size of the country). This article exemplifies that we fact-check anyone or anything that obtains viral attention. The article also is an example of how nuances to the claim are mentioned thoroughly. Finally, the article is also an example on how we use at least two sources to state conclusions/evaluate a claim. Although we always provide claim holders the opportunity to comment the article, this is an article where this was not possible as the claim was travelling in a chain letter and hence not possible to locate the original claim holder. And it is general procedure always to inform the readers, when a claim holder was impossible to locate.

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary.

EX 4:

4th March 2020: Thousands of Danes share news that vitamin C prevents coronavirus. But the claim is not documented, says experts. https://www.tjekdet.dk/tusindvis-af-danskere-deler-nyhed-om-at-c-vitamin-forhindrer-coronavirus-fup-og-svindel-siger-ekspert

Comment: An example of a claim that obtained high viral attention on social media and the internet in general. The claim holders were many – i.e. commercial interests, ideological interests. The fact-check is of outmost importance due to the possible health hazards if the advice is followed. At least three experts with different relevant scientific background are evaluating the claim. The primary claim holder is invited for comments. Finally, we do not rate this claim "false" although you might do this on the basis of the scientific conclusions in the article, but we found it mostly fair to conclude that the claim is not documented.

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal.

EX 5:

16th January 2020: The Minister of Health calls snuff a carcinogen. But the evidence is missing https://www.tjekdet.dk/sundhedsministeren-kalder-snus-kraeftfremkaldende-men-beviset-mangler

Comment: This fact-check shows how we carefully try to balance where the scientific documentation cannot unambiguously give a conclusion. At the same time it also illustrates how experts can have differentiated interpretations, which we must point out when this is the case - and also challenge the experts on these differences.

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal.

EX 6:

17th December 2019: Is Morten Østergaard right that the right-wing radicals are behind the recent terrorist attacks? https://www.tjekdet.dk/har-morten-oestergaard-ret-i-at-hoejreradikale-staar-bag-de-seneste-terrorangreb

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal.

Again, at least two experts are rolling out accessible documentation. Where possible relevant links to the documentation is provided or even included visually in the article.

The claim holder is from a center-left-party, re example 7.

EX 7:

13th December 2019: Online media spreads fake news about mayor, pork in schools and scolding of Muslims https://www.tjekdet.dk/netmedie-spreder-falsk-nyhed-om-borgmester-svinekoed-i-skoler-og-skaeldud-til-muslimer

This article in combination with example number 6 indicates our non-partisanship, since the claim holder in this case is a right-wing media

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal.

This is a claim which cannot be based on scientific documentation, but the claim is evaluated by the central source who can determine what is true and what is false. What is notably here is that we do not quote others, but contact the central source ourselves. This also shows how we strictly meet our own goal of always contacting the relevant sources ourselves.

EX 8:

15th November 2019: Neither Ikea nor Føtex are dropping Christmas https://www.tjekdet.dk/hverken-ikea-eller-foetex-dropper-julen

This article is one of four fact-checks which partly all have the same false claim in common: Well-known supermarkets and other major stores have decided to drop Christmas by renaming certain items. The word "Christmas" in the name of the items are replaced by for example "Winther" in order to accommodate Muslim customers, it is claimed. The four fact-checks evaluates claims concerning various stores and shops. These claims obtained enormous public attention and were not only shared on social media, but also triggered several comments from politicians who, with different political bases, were backing up or the opposite stores and shops - even though the claims were incorrect. Some of the claims were even the basis of news stories in established media - but later corrected when it was clear that the claims were false, misleading or manipulative. The four fact-checking articles shows how we always strives to fact-check claims that are widely spread/known in the public debate. We do not just declare the claims false, but also presents the proof clearly in both text and graphics.

The other three fact-checks can be found here: (2) https://www.tjekdet.dk/har-vinter-erstattet-jul-nu-hagler-kritikken-ned-over-aldis-medister, (3) https://www.tjekdet.dk/har-fakta-sloejfet-julen-tusinder-deler-falsk-opslag-der-driver-gaek-med-df-politiker and (4) https://www.tjekdet.dk/lys-i-fynsk-vintertrae-handler-ikke-om-hensyn-til-islam

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal - where it is possible to locate the claim holder.

EX 9:

4th November 2019: Do Danish pigs receive less antibiotics than pigs in other countries? https://www.tjekdet.dk/faar-danske-svin-mindre-antibiotika-end-svin-i-andre-lande

This article evaluates a claim put forward by a lobbying organization for Danish agriculture. The claim is declared "not documented". Based on the scientific experts conclusion you could argue that the claim is false, but in cases where evidence is deficient, we choose to declare claims "not documented". This is also underlined by highlighting that evidence is unclear or inadequate. However, at the same time, it is important that our articles give readers an idea of what might be (or is) the most likely conclusion of the claims. This is always based on experts' interpretation of the best-known scientific evidence.

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal - where it is possible to locate the claim holder. In this case the claim holders argumentation containing relevant nuances to the claim - and the experts conclusion - are cited thoroughly.

EX 10:

16th August 2019: It was not the nitrogen of agriculture that led to fishing deaths in Filsø https://www.tjekdet.dk/det-var-ikke-landbrugets-kvaelstof-der-foerte-til-fiskedoed-i-filsoe

The reason for mentioning this article is that it again demonstrates our non-partisanship. Where the claim in example number 9 is put forward by lobbying organization for Danish agriculture and declared "not documented", the claim in this article "defends" Danish agriculture. The claim is put forward by The Danish Society for Nature Conservation. The claim incorrectly attacks Danish agriculture, experts says. In the article it is clearly mentioned that there are certain uncertainties and nuances.

The article follows the general structure for our articles. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder, (3) description of the virality of the claim, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Claim holder invited to comment and opportunity for rebuttal - where it is possible to locate the claim holder. 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Links are provided to sources. It is very frequent to use scientists as primary sources. No red flags were found. One of the red flags is to look for if the applicant explains the interests of the sources. I did not find evidence of this, but I think it is quite hard to for example explain the interest of a scientist. One example is a story on a possible vaccine where a scientist say that there is no such vaccine. What his interest are is not explained. Nevertheless, my assessment is that Tjekdet is compliant.


done_all 2.1 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 2.2
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you explain how you select claims to check, explaining how you ensure you do not unduly concentrate your fact-checking on any one side, and how you consider the reach and importance of the claims you select to check.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

All these parameters are explained on the following page: https://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet

On the page, with the mission statement of TjekDet this requested information also is included: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I find that the information in the about page is thorough and good. It is clear to the audience member what kinds of claims that the applicant will assess.


done_all 2.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 2.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I find that Tjekdet is true to the process they set out in the methodology section. They use multiple primary sources, they provide multiple links, they use several scientists in a story and overall they are very ambitious in their fact-checks.


done_all 2.3 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 2.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will assess compliance through a review of the fact checks published over the previous year. No additional information required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Yes, multiple sources are used in fact-checks, but in the IFCN critieria it is also needed to describe the source's potential interests. The primary source are usually scientists or the person making a statement that is assessed. I do not think scientists have particular interests when they are asked to help out in a fact-check, but perhaps I am biased as I am a scientist myself. I have found when I review the stories that even though Tjekdet presents evidence of that a claim made by, for example a politician, is false, the politician does not want to redraw their original claim.


done_all 2.4 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 2.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to a place on your website where you publish a statement setting out your policy on non-partisanship for staff and how it ensures the organization meets this criteria.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

This statement is included in our ethical rules which are described here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet#regelsaet

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Mandag morgen explains clearly their policy of non-partianship for staff. Furthermore, as stated in the application Tjekdet also explains it on their about page.


done_all 2.5 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Section 3: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Sources

To be compliant on sources, applicants must meet these four criteria

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Criteria 3.1
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Sources are transparently used. It is mostly scientists, experts, images of social media posts, or links to webpages. 


done_all 3.1 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 3.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I am not sure "the best" scientist on a topic is always used, but usually two or even three scientists are used as primary sources in a fact-check. 


done_all 3.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 3.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Yes, multiple sources are always used.


done_all 3.3 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 3.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the applicant’s use of sources in a randomised sample of its fact checks to assess compliance. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I do not think scientists have interests that needs to be explained, but perhaps I am biased since I am a scientist myself. Scientists are used as experts to give more evidence to claims. Other types of evidence are also used provided by links to research, reports or other media outlets.


done_all 3.4 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Section 4: A commitment to Transparency of Funding & Organization

To be compliant on funding and organization, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 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).
  • 4.2 Applicants that are the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization make a statement on ownership.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 4.5 The applicant provides easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with the editorial team.

Criteria 4.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please confirm whether you are an ‘independent organization’
or ‘the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization’ and share proof of this organizational status.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

TjekDet is owned by the independent non-profit “Organization TjekDet - National portal for combating fake news”.

https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/visenhed?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&language=da

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The applicant is a fact-checking section of Mandag Morgen.


done_all 4.1 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 4.2
Proof you meet criteria
If your organization is an “independent organization”, please share a link to the page on your website where you detail your funding and indicate the legal form in which the organization is registered (e.g. as a non-profit, as a company etc).
If your organization is “the fact-checking section or unit of a media house or other parent organization”, please share a link to the statement on your website about your ownership.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Official registration can be found here in the national company register: https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/visenhed?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&language=da

Also, the “About section” of the website includes descriptions of ownership, organizational structure: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#ejerforhold

A statement of the funding can be found here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The applicant states clearly that it is part of Mandag Morgen and how the media house is owned.


done_all 4.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 4.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out your organizational structure, making clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The organizational structure and statement on the editorial control can be found here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The organization is transparently explained.


done_all 4.3 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 4.4
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you set out the professional biographies of those who play a significant part in your organization’s editorial output.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Biographies of the editorial staff can be found here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#redaktionen

Members of the board are described here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#bestyrelsen

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Informative bios are available.


done_all 4.4 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 4.5
Proof you meet criteria
Please share a link to where on your website you encourage users to communicate with your editorial team.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

This is done several places on the website:

1) We have a dedicated "tip us"-page, where users can tip us either by name or anonymously: http://www.tjekdet.dk/tip-os

2) On the frontpage there is a graphical call

3) In our mission statement there is section solely about this encouraging the users to contact and tip us https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

4) We link to our TIP US-page both in the bottom of the page, in the sidebar menu and several places in the “About”-section.

5) On Facebook and Twitter we periodically encourage users to contact us - especially of what concerns tips 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Yes, it is clearly visible to users on how to send in tips or communicate with Tjekdet.


done_all 4.5 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Section 5: A commitment to Standards and Transparency of Methodology

To be compliant on methodology, applicants must meet these six criteria

  • 5.1 The applicant publishes on its website a statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact checks.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Criteria 5.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to the statement on your website that explains the methodology you use to select, research, write and publish your fact checks.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

This statement is described here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Yes, the methodology is available in the about section and it is very informative!

The signatory states that the fact-checks should rely on scientific knowledge and when it is possible the opinions of at least two researchers should be included. Furthermore ethical guidelines should be applied. The process of fact checking is clearly described as in a list of four steps.

When reviewing stories, I find that scientists are frequently used as sources that can validate or contradict a claim.

The fact-checks labeled "conclusions" are in particular easy to understand method wise.

Many fact-checks are extremely ambitious, see for example the one about demonstrations following Black-lives matter, where drone footage has been analysed by a Spanish professor and academic models on how to calculate crowds are used to discuss overcrowded demonstrations. Another ambitious example is about how contagious corona appears to be among people in the region of southern Sweden compared to the Copenhagen area. Here three scientists (two danish and one swedish) have been contacted and graphs illustrate conclusions. 


done_all 5.1 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 5.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Yes, from the sample of articles I find that the applicant chooses claims that are viral in social media, such as Facebook and Twitter or claims made in major Danish media outlets.


done_all 5.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 5.3
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Yes, I found that the fact-checks focus on one side, but this is part of the format. If a claim is false, evidence on how to falsify it is presented. Other evidece, such as where the claim came from is presented as "the other side". Both sides are presented in fact-checks where it is uncertain if it is true or false and in the case of that a politician has said something, both sides are also covered.


done_all 5.3 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 5.4
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Yes, it appears as if the same methodology is used regardless of who made the claim


done_all 5.4 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 5.5
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the methodology used in a randomised sample of your fact checks to assess compliance with these criteria. No additional evidence is required.

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Due to the nature of many viral claims, it is seldom possible to contact people responsible for the claim. I did find evidence of that Tjekdet has tried to contact those that are responsible for claims, such as in the story about a claim made by the environmental minister, where the signatory explicitly writes that she was not available for comments. But I also found stories where a politican was available to comment on a fact-check made by Tjekdet, such as in the case of a claim made by a DF politician on weapons and criminality.


done_all 5.5 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 5.6
Proof you meet criteria
Please describe how you encourage 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. Include links where appropriate. If you do not allow this, explain why.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

In our mission statement it is stated: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

(QUOTATION): "Our readers are truth hunters - We can only reach our goals with your help. We are ready to check out a claim, statement or message you have heard or seen in the public debate. And if you have even researched the matter, we also very much welcome your material. We want to involve all readers in the process, and call to help us increase the quality of public debate by fact-checking. Tip us at the email address tip@tjekdet.dk or via our special tip form here, where tips can also be submitted anonymously. We carefully evaluate each tip, including whether these meet our ethical and general editorial guidelines for when we want and can fact-check a claim. If the necessary requirements are not met, the editors will refrain from fact checking the claim. You can read more about these requirements below". (END OF QUOTATION).

A shorter version of this text can be found on the tip-page http://www.tjekdet.dk/tip-os

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Yes, it is clear that the audience can send in claims to check.


done_all 5.6 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Section 6: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy

To be compliant on corrections policy, applicants must meet these five criteria

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Criteria 6.1
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a link to where you publish on your website your corrections or complaints policy. If you are primarily a broadcaster, please provide evidence you frequently reference your corrections policy in broadcasts.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The corrections policy is clear, detailed and easy to understand. A list of corrections is provided. 


done_all 6.1 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 6.2
Proof you meet criteria
The assessor will review the corrections policy to verify it meets critera. No additional information needed.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
TjekDet.dk
07-Jul-2020 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Text has been updated https://www.mm.dk/tjekdet/artikel/fejl-og-fakta. Now including for example

"Corrections and corrections that have the character of corrections of linguistic errors or wordings that do not immediately change the message of the article are made without noticing this in the articles.

Ordinary critical comments on or general other statements of opinion on an article are not considered a complaint that falls under the above guidelines.

You cannot ask for rebutal on behalf of somebody else. The information in question must relate to yourself as a person, company, association, organization, or the like. Rebutals are not entitled if the information provided relates to others or concerns an indefinite group.

The information provided must be incorrect. The information must be of a factual nature."

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The policy is easy to find, transparent but it does not mention what it does NOT cover, and this is part of the 6.2 criteria. This small edit is necessary for compliance. 


done_all 6.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.
Ester Appelgren Assessor
20-Aug-2020 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

The policy is easy to find, transparent but it does not mention what it does NOT cover, and this is part of the 6.2 criteria. This small edit is necessary for compliance. 

After edits: I find that Tjekdet is now compliant.


done_all 6.2 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 6.3
Proof you meet criteria
Please provide a short statement about how the policy was adhered to over the previous year (or six months if this is the first application) including evidence of two examples of the responses provided by the applicant to a correction request over the previous year. Where no correction request has been made in the previous year, you must state this in your application, which will be publicly available in the assessment if your application is successful.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

I must presume that IFCN is not expecting to receive specific mail correspondence with complainants. Handing out such material would probably demand acceptance from complainants.

Since May 1, 2019, TjekDet has added clarifications on our own initiative, minor corrections and significant corrections in 15 articles. Here we give examples of significant corrections.

Clarifications and corrections are described not only on the "Mistakes and Facts"-page, but also in the articles in question. Minor clarifications or corrections are described in a fact box in the bottom of the articles. Significant corrections are described in a fact box in the top of the articles. We differentiate in this way to avoid unnecessarily disrupting reading of the article.

EX 1

"Test confusion: Therefore, South Korea's help could not coronate more Danes" https://wwwtjekdet.dk/testforvirring-derfor-kunne-hjaelp-fra-sydkorea-ikke-coronateste-flere-danskere

This article was criticized on Twitter by especially one person, who regarded the article missing significant nuances. We acknowledged the criticism and added the necessary information.

EX 2

Vaccine skeptics mislead Danish HPV research: "Their study shows the opposite" https://www.tjekdet.dk/vaccineskeptikere-vildleder-om-dansk-hpv-forskning-deres-studie-viser-det-modsatte

In this case two parties also participating in the articles afterwards complained to us. Both complained about the counterpart's outlay of a case - hence the complaints were not directly aimed at us. In order to balance the parties various interpretation of the course of events, we made some corrections in the article, but mostly described the parties' disagreements 

Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The applicant states that they do not expect the IFCN to receive individual audience member complaints. However, I must say, it actually happens - I have myself on two rare occasions assessed such complaints from audience members for the IFCN, yet not for the Tjekdet initiative.

The signatory describes their process for corrections once they are reached by complaints from audience members.


done_all 6.3 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 6.4
Proof you meet criteria
If you are an existing signatory, please provide a link to show where on your site you inform users that if they believe you are violating the IFCN Code, they may inform the IFCN of this, with a link to the complaints page on the IFCN site.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago
Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

The signatory describes their relationship with the IFCN on the website in the about section. There is a paragraph in the "Fejl og fakta" section about how to complain to the IFCN if the code is violated.



done_all 6.4 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.

Criteria 6.5
Proof you meet criteria
If you are the fact-checking unit of a media company, please provide a link to the parent media company’s honest and open corrections policy and provide evidence that it adheres to this.

TjekDet.dk
07-May-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 1 year ago

TjekDet.dk is owned by the registered independent and non-profit organization “Foreningen TJEKDET - National portal for bekæmpelse of fake news” (translates to “The Organization TjekDet - National portal for combating fake news”). This organization has solely the purpose to operate the fact-checking media.


 https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/visenhed?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&language=da

TjekDet.dk
07-Jul-2020 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago


Ester Appelgren Assessor
01-Jul-2020 (2 years ago) Updated: 2 years ago

Even though the signatory states that it is not common for Danish media websites to include a corrections polices, it should be in place on Mandag Morgen for Tjekdet to meet the criteria. It does not have to be more than a few sentences long. Actually, the process for corrections is described in a very good manner in the about section of Tjekdet and in the section "Fejl of fakta" and my assessment is that Tjekdet absolutely is compliant for this criteria, but unfortunately, I could not find that Mandag Morgen is. 


done_all 6.5 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.
Ester Appelgren Assessor
20-Aug-2020 (1 year ago) Updated: 1 year ago

Even though the signatory states that it is not common for Danish media websites to include a corrections polices, it should be in place on Mandag Morgen for Tjekdet to meet the criteria. It does not have to be more than a few sentences long. Actually, the process for corrections is described in a very good manner in the about section of Tjekdet and in the section "Fejl of fakta" and my assessment is that Tjekdet absolutely is compliant for this criteria, but unfortunately, I could not find that Mandag Morgen is. 


After ownership change: Because Mandag Morgen is no longer the owner, the signatory is now compliant.


done_all 6.5 marked as Compliant by Ester Appelgren.