Grupo La Republica Publicaciones SA

Organization: Verificador de La República
Applicant: Rider Bendezú
Assessor: Ramón Salaverría
Edits made by the organization after this assessment

IFCN Staff wrote:

On Section 3A, we have placed more external links on the original sources, and about Sections 4A and 4B, we have placed the information in "about us" page.


Conclusion and recommendations
on 11-Jan-2020 (2 months ago)

Ramón Salaverría wrote:

According to the assessment, we recommend accepting the application, although three minor edits are advised to the applicant, in order to fully comply with the criteria 3a, 4a, and 4b.

1) Providing more external links to original sources, not just mentioning then in the fact-checks. (Criterion 3a)

2) Publishing a clear and easy-to-find funding data about La República publishing company. (Criterion 4a)

3) Providing profiles or biographies of the editors and journalists involved in the fact-checlking service. (Criterion 4b)

Apart from these details, La República's Verificador complies with all the requirements of the IFCN Code of Principles.

on 11-Jan-2020 (2 months ago)

Ramón Salaverría 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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

We are attaching the "Copia Literal de la Partida Registral" of Grupo La Republica Publicaciones that support that we are a duly created company in Peru.

Files Attached
Captura de Pantalla... (352 KB)
Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

Grupo La República Publicaciones S.A. is a well established and widely recognized news organization of Peru, publisher of 'La República', one of the leading newspapers of the country since it was founded in 1981. As part of the website of 'La República', in September 2019 it was launched a service called 'Verificador' (Verifier), briefly called 'VerificadorLR' in social networks, devoted to fact-checking and debunking of missinformation. As requested, the applicant has presented evidence of its legal registration.


done_all 1a marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

La República's Verificador covers a variety of subjects or speakers in a fairly balanced way. It covers a wide range of topics of both national and international issues. It publishes fact-checks on a regular basis, on average 3-4 per week. 


done_all 1b marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

In order to maintain quality standards through fact checks, we filter the issues to be verified based on the criteria of public interest, impact and scope of influence. It is important for "La República" to verify the content on social networks that affects our readers, as well as that which is given as true because it was said by a public character.

In addition, we follow a standardized protocol to guarantee the quality of the verifications. In the case of viral publications, we check their originality and in the case of affirmations, we assess the veracity of the data.

We write a verification article with a recognizable scheme, illustrative images and clear wording; In short, elements that facilitate reading. To this we add enough context to present the case in its real dimension.

The articles that best illustrate the verification work of "La República" are related with:


Politics

It is false that 70% of ‘gang-rapers’ are foreigners, as they claim from Vox.

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/11/06/espana-santiago-abascal-e-ivan-espinosa-politicos-de-vox-afirman-que-mayoria-de-violadores-en-manada-son-extranjeros-lo-cual-es-falso-video/


It is false that a government can make use of Central Bank funds, as Andrés Hurtado stated.

https://larepublica.pe/politica/2019/08/26/andres-hurtado-chibolin-es-falso-que-un-gobierno-pueda-usar-fondos-del-banco-central-para-construir-casas-como-propone-el-presentador/


It is false that Martín Vizcarra provides ‘express citizenship to foreigners, as Cecilia Chacón stated.

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/10/07/nacionalidad-peruana-es-falso-que-martin-vizcarra-brinde-ciudadania-express-a-extranjeros-como-afirmo-cecilia-chacon/


Justice and corruption

"People are not interested in corruption": Lourdes Alcorta's phrase does not match the polls.

https://larepublica.pe/politica/2019/07/18/lourdes-alcorta-frase-de-congresista-de-fuerza-popular-de-que-a-la-gente-no-le-interesa-la-corrupcion-no-se-condice-con-las-encuestas-video/


It is false that the ‘El Monstruo de la Bicicleta - Bicycle Monster’ is free: he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/10/13/monstruo-de-la-bicicleta-es-falso-que-cesar-alva-mendoza-salga-libre-recibio-cadena-perpetua-por-caso-jimena-video/


It is false that "Venezuelan mother tortures her son": woman in the video is Peruvian.

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/09/27/venezolana-tortura-a-su-hija-es-falso-el-video-corresponderia-a-una-mujer-peruana-de-yungayo-puno-diana-carolina-cori-y-ramiro-mamani/


Ambient

“Bolsonaro supports the sustainable development of the Amazon”: Carlos Tubino's statement is false.

https://larepublica.pe/politica/2019/08/09/carlos-tubino-jair-bolsonaro-apoya-el-desarrollo-sostenible-de-la-amazonia-de-brasil-frase-de-congresista-de-fuerza-popular-es-falsa/


CR7 and Messi virals hiring planes in favor of the Amazon are false.

https://larepublica.pe/mundo/2019/08/25/amazonas-incendio-forestal-en-brasil-cristiano-ronaldo-y-lionel-messi-es-falso-que-futbolistas-contrataron-aviones-para-apagar-fuego-en-la-selva-amazonica-video/


Fire in the Amazon: It is false that “heavy rains” have fallen in the Brazilian Amazon.

https://larepublica.pe/mundo/2019/08/22/llueve-en-amazonas-incendio-forestal-en-amazonia-de-brasil-clima-y-lluvia-de-hoy-no-disminuira-las-llamas-y-el-fuego-video/


Health

Recommendation to avoid preventive screening for prostate cancer is mislead

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/10/18/cancer-de-prostata-prevencion-de-norteamerica-dejo-de-recomendar-chequeo-preventivo/












Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

According to the set of ten fact-checks provided by the applicant and my own assessment of the archive in the last three months, La República's Verificador covers a variety of topics. Besides politics, which is notably the main topic, it also covers many other issues, such as justice and corruption, environment, health and even celebrity and odd news. Verificador presents the fact-checking article under a recognizable layout that helps readers to indentify that news story as a fact-checking piece.


done_all 2a marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Stipulated in the code of ethics of Grupo La Republica, article 7.1.6. about the conflict of interest.

Files Attached
Captura de Pantalla... (82 KB)
Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

La República's Verificador does not advocate in favor or against any Peruvian political party or candidate. The publishing company has a sound ethics code, which prevents workers from taking advantage of their position to make any business arrangement with third parties. Accepting payments or any kind of funding from companies or political parties is also prohibited to journalists.  


done_all 2b marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

In the case of source policy the treatment depends on the type of source. If it is audiovisual material, the tools that were used and the method used to reach it are mentioned. If the source is an article, the owner is mentioned, the website where it is hosted and the date of publication. Usually, images are inserted into the note that allow you to follow the verification process.

We consider it important to contextualize the data that we provide to the reader. Therefore, we turn to specialists who can broaden the subject. In addition, we specify where they work. Usually they belong to the public sector.

Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

Readers are invited to suggests news stories and statements to be fact-checked, as well as to submit corrections, in case they find something wrong in the fact-checks.

In the fact-checks, La República's Verificador backs regularly the correct information with reliable sources. However, it usually does so just by attributing the source, without linking to pages of those external sources. When links are used, they mostly refer to internal pages of La República. In order to improve the capacity of readers to check the truthfulness of the reports by themselves, it would be advisable to add external links in the fact-checks. We invite the applicant to improve this aspect.


done 3a marked as Partially compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

At the moment we have no relationship with funding organizations that support journalistic projects.

Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

La República's Verificador does not provide on the 'about us' section of its website or anywhere else any specific information “detailing each source of funding over the past calendar year accounting for 5% or more of total revenue”, contrary to what it is requested by the IFCN code of principles. As this fact-checking project is bound to a newspaper publishing company, Grupo La República Publicaciones S.A., readers could somehow find this funding information by themselves. However, this searching of financial information would take substantial effort and time, so the readers can easily get lost trying to find it. Therefore a clearer, more transparent funding data would be appreciated.


done 4a marked as Partially compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

The "Verificador" team is in the "Nosotros" section.


Staff https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/09/10/sobre-nosotros/

Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

On the 'Sobre nosotros' (About us) section, La República's Verificador presents the names and emails of the staff members behind the project, composed of five editors and journalists when this assessment was performed. However, contrary to what it is requested by the IFCN code of principles, it did not provide any profile or biography of these journalists. This deficiency should be fixed by the applicant in order to fully comply with the requirements.


done 4b marked as Partially compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago
Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

La República's Verificador provides a specific, easy-to-find contact page for comments, suggestions and complaints.


done_all 4c marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

We explain how we check the verification articles in the "Metodología" section: https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/09/10/metodologia/


Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

La República's Verificador informs in sufficient detail about its fact-checking methodology.


done_all 5a marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

We have created "Contacto" area for verifications requests, consultation, links and reader data.

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/09/11/contacto/


Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

Readers are invited to suggests news stories and statements to be fact-checked through the contact page.


done_all 5b marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

Corrections will be explained with a heading at the end of the article.

In the event that the article has errors that distort the rating and should be removed from the section, an explanation will be left next to the owner with whom it was shared on social networks in the "Correcciones" section.

https://larepublica.pe/verificador/2019/10/19/correcciones/


Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

La República's Verificador works under a sound corrections policy, publicly disclosed on the website.


done_all 6a marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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

Verificador de La República
20-Nov-2019 (4 months ago) Updated: 3 months ago

To date there are no corrections.

Ramón Salaverría Assessor
05-Jan-2020 (3 months ago) Updated: 2 months ago

This assesment was performed in January 2020, when just four months had passed since La República's Verificador was launched in September 2019. Therefore, it was a too short period of time to obtain enought evidences of corrections made over the past year. Despite this short period of activity, one news story with a correction was found, which, according to the requirements of the IFCN code of principles, it was later disclosed in a public list of corrections.

In regard of this only evidence, the assessment of this criterion is as fully compliant. However, we recommend the applicant to improve the transparency of their corrections. In the only news story that had been corrected by the time this assessment was performed, they just added a final paragraph to the fact-check, indicating that an original paragraph of the news had been removed because it was "oblivious to the verification of documents". A more transparent and accountable correction would be advisable, in order to allow readers to track which details of the fact-checking news story were corrected and why.


done_all 6b marked as Fully compliant by Ramón Salaverría.

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.