European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN)

VERIFIED MEMBERS

Membership in the EFCSN signifies an organisation’s rigorous commitment to provide accurate information ethically and transparently, without bias or prejudice and focus on matters in the public interest as well as a proven track record of excellence, integrity and accountability as definied in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations.

← Return to organization page

APA - Austria Press Agency

Website

https://apa.at/faktencheck

Date

09/02/2024

Please, answer the following questions:

Article 2.2: Methodology

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

https://apa.at/faktencheck/regeln/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

Under the link provided, the organization explains its methodology systematically. The explanation is clear and complete and written in a way that is understandable for an average reader. The three main stages of the fact-checking process (where/how the operation finds and chooses claims for investigation; how staff conduct research to evaluate claims; how fact-checks are written, edited and published, plus definitions of any rating systems used (for example ‘misleading’, ‘false’, etc.)) are explained. The organization also explains in a comprehensive and convincing manner why it consciously decided against a rating system.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/01/2024

Yes, the applicant has a clear, complete and easily accessible description of their fact-checking methodology on their site linked here.
APA-Faktencheck emphasizes transparency, independence, and comprehensive research to provide the Austrian audience with reliable information in the face of growing challenges posed by misinformation.

Concerning "where/how the operation finds and chooses claims for investigation":
Fact-checks cover not only political statements but also address relevant societal issues from various domains.
They put an emphasis on providing valuable information to the Austrian audience and protecting them from misinformation.
Claims are selected for fact-checking based on their potential societal impact, going "viral," or influencing public opinion significantly.
Finally, there also seems to be some feedback loop with audiences when it comes to suggesting topics to fact-check.

Concerning "how staff conduct research to evaluate claims":

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/01/2024

The focus of the evaluation seems to be on presenting verified facts, allowing readers to form their opinions based on comprehensive information.
In cases that may be seen as "politically sensitive" the applicant contacts sources for clarification, including reaching out to politicians or their spokesperson directly.
There is routine collaboration with experts and consideration of their biases when interpreting information.
Fact-checks undergo a collaborative process involving at least two individuals, adhering to the "Vier-Augen-Prinzip" (four-eyes principle).
However, due to the diversity of claims to be checked no clear pipeline of claim evaluation is described.

Concerning "how fact-checks are written, edited and published, plus definitions of any rating systems used (for example ‘misleading’, ‘false’, etc.)":
The applicant provides a comprehensive description of how they write fact-checks. Each fact-check typically begins with an introduction, explaining the rationale for choosing the topic. The fact-check itself comprises three parts: presentation of the claim, pre-assessment of the claim based on the verification process, and a transparent disclosure of the steps taken in the verification.
They describe that they avoid a simple true/false categorization or labels but aim to provide nuanced insights/assessments.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

This practice is contained in the fact-checking operation’s methodology. After checking a number of randomly chosen fact checks on the organization's website, my impression is that the organization lives up to this claim. I need to emphasize that I did not find many fact-checks that involved Austrian political parties, which the organization explains further down in its application with a strong focus of the event situation on the corona crisis, the climate crisis, and the war in Ukraine. This is understandable. Nevertheless, in the fact checks related to political parties that I found, I did not get the impression that there was any systematic partisan bias. The fact checks I read were very similar concerning the way in which facts were checked and which kinds of sources were used for checking. The procedure was always made transparent.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/01/2024

I have checked the following fact-checks at random:
https://apa.at/faktencheck/apa-faktencheck-ukrainisch-polnische-grenze-weiterhin-offen/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/apa-faktencheck-fake-anzeigen-locken-mit-unserioesen-angeboten/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/klimakrise-fuehrt-zu-starker-erwaermung-der-arktis/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/deutsche-regierung-foerdert-letzte-generation-nicht/

All these fact-checks follow the above described methodology, are clearly structured and transparent about their process to the claim assessment.

To assess whether there is a notable political bias, I assessed the following fact-checks screening for claims that involve Austrian politicians or parties:
https://apa.at/faktencheck/foto-von-sebastian-kurz-nachtraeglich-bearbeitet/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/apa-faktencheck-fpoe-video-zu-covid-impfung-enthaelt-desinformation/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/falschbehauptung-ueber-ludwigs-besuch-am-brunnenmarkt/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/keine-hinweise-auf-manipulation-von-ludwig-video/
https://apa.at/faktencheck/verheimlichten-sz-und-spiegel-entlastende-strache-aussagen-aus-dem-ibiza-video/

All these fact-checks follow the above described methodology while checking claims of politicians from various Austrian parties. No bias could be identified in the claim assessment.

It is of note, however, that only a minority of fact-checks by the applicant directly refers to claims by political parties or politicians in the first place.

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

The main job of the APA fact check is the examination of claims that are relevant for the general populace. They relate on economy, education, environment, governance and the functioning of the political system, individual and public health, and individual and public rights. Circulating desinformation relating to those topics could have an impact on the welfare or well-being of individuals, the general public or society.

Due to the corona crisis, the climate crisis and the war in Ukraine in the past few years, there have been for the most part fact checks without a clear-cut political background, and the team did not focus much on national parties. In political fact checks, which will make up an undetermined number of stories in future, the team will continue to be careful to examine the claims by different parties using the same set of criteria and to examine claims from more than one party or political side. Our effort is to make sure of a balanced proportion of fact checks on politicians from all parties. In all fact checks, the same high standards are applied, such as careful research, the uncovering of primary sources or reliable secondary sources, the (often not possible or not fruitful) contact with the people making the original claims (if it is detectable), the work with verification tools, the transparent documentation of all research steps or the presentation of contradictory statements or contradictory stances.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

From my perspective, the fact checks published on the website of the organization meet the requirement of concentrating on topics that concern the welfare of society and/or individuals. The fact checks address a broad range of topics related to a broad range of societal areas, including for example health, climate, environment, economy, politics, transportation, science, and consumer protection. This, together with the statement of the organization on this question in this application, does not leave any doubt that the work of this organization is focused on the public interest.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/01/2024

Based on the provided list of fact checks conducted by the applicant, it is evident that the fact-checking organization covers a wide range of topics. Here are some broad themes that emerge from the fact checks:

Political Statements and Misinformation: Fact checks include claims related to political figures, government policies, and international events. For example, there are checks related to statements made by politicians, the Ukrainian conflict, and misinformation about political events.
Health and COVID-19: The fact checks address claims related to health, particularly concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes information about vaccines, pandemic response, and the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of society.
Environmental Issues: Fact checks cover topics related to the environment, climate change, and ecological concerns. Claims about climate change, weather events, and environmental policies are addressed.
Social Issues: Fact checks include information related to societal issues, such as immigration, discrimination, and social justice. There are checks on claims regarding various social matters, including protests and cultural events.
Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories: Some fact checks debunk false information and conspiracy theories. Topics range from chemtrails to moon landings, highlighting efforts to counter misinformation.
Technological and Scientific Claims: Fact checks address claims related to technology, science, and innovation. This includes topics like AI-generated images, vaccine effectiveness, and the use of technology in spreading misinformation.
Economic and Financial Claims: Some fact checks relate to economic matters, including financial policies, government spending, and economic impacts of certain events.

Yes, I do believe that the topics covered by the applicant concern the welfare of society and/or its individuals.

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

Readers are invited to send in suggestions. They can find information on this site: https://apa.at/faktencheck/kontakt/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

The users are informed about how to submit suggestions for facts to be checked at several places on the website, and they are encouraged to do so. Users can take contact by email (the email address is mentioned several times on the website), which is an easily accessible communication channel. Under the link above, the organization explains also which facts/statements are relevant for fact checks as well as which facts/statements the users can be expect to be checked and which not. In this context, the organization links in addition to its page which explains its rules for fact checking (see 2.A.).

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 10/01/2024

The applicant explains that readers and APA customers are encouraged to suggest topics and provide feedback on fact-checks. The aim is to empower readers with the tools to independently verify claims and understand the digital-era research methods employed.
They can do so via email or social media. On the webpage with the contact details, the applicant also explains in clear terms what can/cannot be fact-checked similar to what has been described in the overall methodology.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

In the sample of randomly chosen fact-checks I reviewed, all conclusions drawn were backed up by sources (see also my comment on 2.E.) and all pertinent factual statements included as background or context are clearly sourced, either with links and/or by citing the source by name. The organization also makes transparent if the credibility of sources is questionable, if and why a potential source (e.g., the originator of a social media post) could not be contacted , and if a fact could not be verified. If it is stated that a claim or parts of it is true, this was always undermined by citing evidence in the fact-checks that I reviewed.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

Additional note: This practice is included in the organization's own rules for fact-checking.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 13/01/2024

The role of primary sources isn't clearly described in the applicant methodology. I guess this could be stressed more. A clearer description of how claims are assessed when primary sources are available vs. not available could benefit the clarity of the methodology. This includes, as well, describing whether there is a specific kind of evidence that is weighted more strongly than others.
It's worth noting that despite the perceived ambiguity in the methodology description, a cursory examination of actual fact-checks reveals that the applicant consistently adheres to the outlined methodology. Thus, the issue seems to lie more in the articulation of the methodology rather than its implementation.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 13/01/2024

Notably, however, the following can be found in the methodology - stressing some focus on primary sources.:
"Additionally, one goal when verifying claims is to contact the sources behind information. This is often very difficult or problematic when it comes to checking social media posts. However, especially when checking political statements, APA Fact Check tries to get in touch with the respective politician or their spokespeople and give them the opportunity to take a stand."

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 29/01/2024

The text on our website was adjusted accordingly to make clear that we are especially careful when using secondary sources, and check for possible distortions or biases. Primary sources are always preferred to secondary sources.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 03/02/2024

This section is now compliant with EFCSN.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

According to the rules/methodology of the organization as described on their website, the aim of every fact check is to find sources that support an assertion on the one hand and to compare contradictory sources on the other (which I interpret as the goal to provide at least two sources) as well as to contact the sources behind a piece of information when verifying claims (which I interpret as the goal to use the best available primary source). All fact checks that I checked randomly on the website provided more than two sources to verify the central claim of the investigation. As far as I can see, all fact checks I checked included both primary sources and secondary sources (e.g., news articles on the respective issue/claim).

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 13/01/2024

See the comment above. The methodology described on the website doesn't clearly differentiate between different types of sources but mainly states: "The goal of every APA fact check is, on the one hand, to find sources that support a claim and, on the other hand, to compare contradictory sources."
Again, however, in practice the applicant is compliant with this methodology in that primary sources are cited, when available. Furthermore, this is accompanied by other secondary sources as well. Beyond that, where suitable primary sources are not available, a multitude of secondary sources are referenced.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 13/01/2024

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

I could not find this policy in the applicant’s methodology as described on its website. Sources used in the fact-checks are most often identified by name (in case of both organizations and individuals as sources) as well as (if applicable) title, occupation, affiliation and sometimes additional information (in case of individuals). However, I found some cases in which the fact-checks cited sources without mentioning the name, for example
- the driver of the car and the spokesperson of EVN in this example: https://apa.at/faktencheck/wann-stehen-windraeder-still/
- the man who posted the photo which led to the fact check in this example: https://apa.at/faktencheck/keine-registrierungspflicht-mehr-in-gastronomie/
The reasons for not mentioning the names of the sources in these cases is not explained. It is not possible for me to know if the sources disagreed with using their names.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

Initially, I selected "non compliant" based on my evaluation described above. However, as proceeding with the evaluation, I recognize that mentioning the names of users who post photos or statements might be a breach with the ethical standards addressed further down. The guide for the assessors did not mention that under 2.H. yet. Instead of selecting "non compliant", I would now (after having become familiar with the ethical standards) like to give the organization the opportunity to comment on that and have therefore selected "need more information".

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

After having further proceeded with reviewing the application (particularly 3.2.B), I understand why the names of the driver of the car and the man who posted the photo in the examples above were not mentioned. However, the organization still should provide an explanation why the names of spokespersons are not mentioned. This is important since the standards of the EFCSN explicitly mention that if possible the names of spokespersons should be mentioned.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

Thank you for your feedback on this point. We have added some information on our website to make the handling of source identities clearer. For the handling of users who write or spread claims on social media, we refer to 3.2.B „Take measures to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny“.

On the subject of giving names of spokespeople, we are generally on the same page as the assessors, and mostly attempt to mention them by name. Sometimes, however, spokespeople ask us to mention their companies and not them. We refer here to 2H „Name all sources except when their safety is at risk“, and we are unclear if this is a conflict at all with 2E „When evidence comes in the form of quotes from individuals, it is sufficient to include their name, title and the quote“.

The question also presents itself as to whether press spokespeople can be seen as “individuals”, as they are not giving personal opinions. Their statements have been written and sanctioned by entire departments. It would not make a great difference to mention the name of a spokesperson unless they were speaking outside of their official function. It would also not be possible to mention a name if a company answered a mail request with an office address.

We are willing to edit the few fact checks where names are not mentioned should the assessors not agree with our line of argumentation. In the mid-term, we would certainly ask for clarification on this matter from the EFCSN.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

Thanks for this explanation. I find it understandable and consider the practice compliant with the standards as they are now.

I suggest that the EFCSN clarifies this criterion since it seems to be not entirely clear what exactly is expected here and why.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 13/01/2024

It is unclear how the applicant deals with sources that wish to remain anonymous.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 30/01/2024

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

The rules of the organization on its website contain the following: "Like all APA texts, fact checks are created by a team of at least two people in order to maintain the four-eyes principle and to check the text again." I interpret this as each fact-check has two authors. All fact-checks that I checked had in fact two authors. However, in my interpretation, this is different from what is required by the criteria of the EFCSN that there should be "at least one round of editing by someone OTHER than the author before publication." I would like to ask the organization to provide more information on what exactly is meant by the statement on their website.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

After an additional check, I found the following additional information on the organization's website: "To ensure the quality of the APA fact checks, the texts are proofread, analyzed and checked by at least one other person. These proofreaders point out ambiguities, problems and errors when they notice them." Therefore, I revise my evaluation above and arrive now at the result that the organization complies with the standard.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 29/01/2024

We understand that the wording on the APA-Faktencheck page may have been misleading. We have edited the description of the production process for more clarity. Fact-checking texts are always produced by one or several people, and then the text is checked again by another person before it is published as a “fact-checking” product

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 13/01/2024

The applicant methodology mentions that fact-checks are written by at least two people (four-eye-principle) - if not more. It is, however, unclear whether there is another round of editing done by non-authors before publication.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 30/01/2024

Best Practices:

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Article 3.1: Non-Partisanship and Impartiality

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

https://apa.at/faktencheck/regeln/

The development and structure of every fact check follows the same pattern: First information about a circulating claim, its relevance and its reach is reported, immediately followed by an assessment, so that readers are made aware right away if the claim is false. This is followed by a comprehensive and transparent examination of what is true or false about the claim, with the help of publicly-available sources.

Assessments will only be made following researched facts. The selected fact checks show the compliance with strict criteria for the examination of claims, as well how exactly the conclusions were reached. It is the goal of the APA fact check team that readers can reconstruct every step of the fact check for themselves.

https://apa.at/faktencheck/falschbehauptung-ueber-ludwigs-besuch-am-brunnenmarkt/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/falschbehauptungen-ueber-innsbrucker-gemeinderat/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/altes-planai-foto-spricht-nicht-gegen-klimawandel/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/eu-seit-langer-zeit-fuer-vitamin-hoechstmengen/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/regenwetter-spricht-nicht-gegen-klimakrise/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/ki-generierte-bilder-haeufig-geteilt/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/angeblicher-rt-artikel-zu-prigoschins-tod-ist-fake/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/bmi-daten-zu-migrationsrouten-kaum-aussagekraeftig/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/polizei-entfernt-klimaaktivisten-in-der-regel-zuegig/

https://apa.at/faktencheck/keine-registrierungspflicht-mehr-in-gastronomie/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

This policy is clearly stated in the rules as provided on the organization's website. All fact-checks I reviewed (including the ten linked here) follow the same structure. However, the "explanation of how the examples show that your staff use the same methodology regardless of the origin or political leanings of the claim" as required could have been a bit more extensive and address the individual examples specifically instead of just making a general statement about them. I would like to ask the organization for a more extensive explanation here. Moreover, based on the ten provided fact-checks, it is a bit difficult to evaluate if the investigations focus unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum (which I interpret as Austrian political parties in this case) since more than half of the 10 fact-checks do not address any political party. I understood that during the last year the organization focused strongly on other issues. Still, I wonder if there are better examples to show that the organization complies with this standard.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

We understand that it is difficult to examine this criteria with our fact checks, because following the topics over the past few years, there have been barely any fact checks centering on political parties. We can unfortunately not provide any better examples, as we have already done our best to list ten fact checks which were partially associated with politicians and parties

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

I understand, and given this situation, I consider this as compliant with the standards.

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

https://apa.at/faktencheck/regeln/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

The rules as defined on the organization's website state concerning the selection of sources among others: "Consideration is also given to whether a person or organization may be biased due to their activities in the past. In this case, either alternatives are sought or the possible bias is highlighted if it is considered necessary." On the site which presents the fact-checking team, it is in addition stated that the organization has "strict guidelines regarding partisanship or the acceptance of gifts. These stipulate, for example, that financial benefits such as sponsored business trips must be disclosed in the text."

The fact-checks I checked did not contain any statements about conflicts of interest but this can be simply due to the fact that there weren't any conflicts of interest.

However, I miss the description of an example how a conflict of interest was handled by the organization. This should be added. If there has not been such an example so far, this should be stated.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

APA fact checks are not customised products, so there are neither donors nor conflicts of interest. In all other cooperations and projects with social media platforms, public financiers or scientific institutions, we always make clear that the department maintains its independence and objectivity. We have added a passage on the subject on our homepage.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/02/2024

Thanks for this explanation. Can you please provide a link where I can find the passage you added or alternatively cite it here? Thanks!

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 05/02/2024

https://apa.at/faktencheck/team/

"Die Mitglieder des Faktencheck-Teams unterliegen wie alle APA-Redakteurinnen und APA-Redakteure strengen Richtlinien, was Parteinahme oder Geschenkannahme betrifft. Diese regeln etwa, dass finanzielle Zuwendungen wie gesponserte Dienstreisen im Text ausgewiesen werden. APA-Faktenchecks sind allerdings kein Auftragsprodukt, deshalb gibt es hier auch keine Geldflüsse, die zu Interessenskonflikten führen könnten. Darüber hinaus wird in jeder Kooperation mit Social Media-Plattformen oder öffentlichen Geldgebern festgehalten, dass die redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit und Einschätzung unberührt bleibt."

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

Thanks for the quick reply.

Article 3.2: Privacy and Safety

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

APA-Faktencheck obscures images and identities of subjects of an investigation whenever there are reasonable concerns for their safety. In the past there has never been the need to blur pictures but we would do it if it was necessary. In general we don't publish pictures of circulating media in our texts. We link to online sources if it is helpful and we always consider if we would cause harm by linking to online media.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

The statement made in the application sounds trustworthy, so my impression is that the organization has put thought into the matter and takes its responsibility serious. The organization states that there have so far not been any cases in which it was necessary to blur pictures. In line with that, I didn't find any examples in the fact-checks I took a look at.

I wonder if the examples I mentioned above in the context of anonymity of sources (see 2.H) have to be seen in relation with this standard. Does the organization not mention names of social media users whose posts they are checking in order to protect these people? It would be good if the organization could provide more information on that.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

After having read the organization's explanation to 3.2.B. below, my question has been answered, so I have changed my evaluation to "compliant". (Since it is not possible to change my comments as soon as I have saved them, I can't change my original comment but rather must add additional comments.)

Best Practices

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Article 3.3: Honest corrections

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

https://apa.at/faktencheck/korrekturregeln/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

The organisation’s corrections policy outlines that the fact-checks published on their own website are editable and that corrections are made and disseminated on the website. The corrections policy also contains the following information: "In the case of important corrections, information can also be provided via Twitter. This is particularly necessary if the incorrect information has been used in the tweet text, as this is text that cannot be corrected." However, even though this is required in the application, the organization did not provide any examples where I could check if this requirement is met. The organization should provide at least one example of correction on Twitter. If the reason for not providing an example is that this never happened so far, this should be explicitly stated.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 30/01/2024

There has been no case where the correction of a Tweet/X-Post was necessary. We have added a statement on the website.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

Thanks for clarifying this.

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

There haven't been major errors in the past year that fundamentally changed the conclusion of a investigation.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

I didn't find any information in the corrections policy if the organization in case of substantial errors would explain how the error transpired. However, as the organization is in general very transparent about how they conducted the individual fact-checks, I'm confident that they also would make transparent why substantial errors happened and how they handled that. I would like to ask the organization to provide more information about how they would handle such cases.

As the organization states that not any substantial errors happened in the past year, it is not possible to check that.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

Transparency with errors and corrections is one of the top values for APA Faktencheck and the entire APA. With corrections, APA-Faktencheck always tries to provide readers with information on why changes were made, and what these were. In addition, insights into processes between fact check publication and correction can be made available, such as in this fact check from 2020: https://apa.at/faktencheck/mehr-coronatests-in-wien/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

Thanks for providing this example which illustrates well that APA Faktencheck complies with the standards.

Best Practices:

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as best practices that are encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

Article 4.1: Organisational transparency

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

https://apa.at/faktencheck/team/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/01/2024

I am not entirely sure if the organization complies with this requirement. As said, the required information is given for all four members of the fact-checking unit. However, the organization states that it works occasionally together with other colleagues working for APA but the website on the fact-checking team does not provide more information about these colleagues. (This is maybe rather a question to the EFCSN team what exactly is meant by criterion 4.1.F.)

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

The colleagues and departments can help with the research process, such as in making contact with experts or authorities, but are not part of the actual production process. They are not individually named because there can be different people within every department.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

Thank you for this additional information.

Article 4.2: Financial transparency and conflicts of interest

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), organisations or parent organisations must:

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/01/2024

The organization has provided the names of a number of other organizations which are contributing to the income of the organization. It is not possible for me to verify if all information given is correct and complete but in case of the majority of organizations mentioned, I know also from other sources that these contribute to the income of the APA.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 14/01/2024

The link to the annual financial report 2022 seems to be broken.
Some of the contributions come from official authorities, such as the parliament, the (federal/regional) governments, individual ministries, the federal economic chamber, or the federal labour chamber. The applicant may want to elaborate where they disclose this information or why they deem that disclosing this information is not necessary as it doesn't pose a conflict of interest.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

Link is fixed.
APA-Faktencheck does not receive any public funds aside from the projects and cooperations listed on the website.

Applicant

Date: 07/11/2023

https://apa.at/faktencheck/aufbau-redaktionelle-grundsaetze/

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 08/01/2024

The link given above provides information on the organization's overall annual income.

When it comes to the names of all sources of income that contribute over 5% of the organization’s overall income from the most recent annual accounts, these cannot be found under the link above. Concerning the APA (which the fact checking unit belongs to), the required information can be found here: https://apa.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/APA_Offenlegung-3.pdf

However, the organization should add this link to the application and make clear if the sources of income under the link I mentioned also apply to the fact checking unit.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 29/01/2024

The most recent disclosure document of APA's cooperatives can be found here:
https://apa.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/APA_Offenlegung-5.pdf
https://apa.at/about/impressum/
These documents apply to the whole company, which APA-Faktencheck is a part of.

Melanie Magin (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/02/2024

Ok, thank you.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 14/01/2024

See comment above.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 30/01/2024

APA-Faktencheck does not receive any public funds aside from the projects and cooperations listed on the website. Link to annual report is fixed, the disclosure document of APA's cooperatives can be found here:
https://apa.at/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/APA_Offenlegung-5.pdf
https://apa.at/about/impressum/

Best Practices

In addition to the required standards listed above, the Code identifies the following as a best practice that is encouraged but not required to join the EFCSN.

I. ELIGIBILITY TO APPLY In order to apply to the EFCSN, your fact-checking operation must first meet the criteria outlined in Chapter 5.2 of the Code.

1. When and why was your fact-checking operation started?

2. How many people work or volunteer in the operation and what are their roles?

3. Please list any activities besides fact-checking that your operation engages in.

4. What are the goals of your fact-checking operation over the coming year?

5. Please explain the geographical scope of your fact-checking operation and how you fit the Code’s requirement to “have a substantial and demonstrable focus on one or more of the countries of the Council of Europe, Kosovo, Belarus or Russia”.

5.b Please provide all the relevant information to demonstrate the existence of “a meaningful connection with the country or countries where the mis- and disinformation your organization fact-check originates from”.

6. Please attach a list of an average of four original fact-checks per month from the past year if this is your first time applying to the EFCSN or from the past two years if you are renewing your application.

7. Please note which policies you have had to change, if any, over the past 6 months in order to comply with the Code.

2.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website an explanation of the process used to select, research and complete investigations, including a definition of any rating systems used.

2.B. Assess the merits of the evidence found using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.

2.C. Primarily focus on topics that are in the public interest, defined here as issues that concern the welfare of society or individuals, and be willing to explain, if requested by an assessor, how various investigations fit this definition.

2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website a channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification and encourage users to send claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

2.E. Identify and include in publications, when possible, access to all evidence or other required information for a reader to replicate the verification process.

2.F. Provide evidence for every pertinent factual statement made in an investigation, relying on primary sources where possible. Set out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.

2.H. Name all sources except when their safety is at risk. In such exceptions, anonymous sources may only be included if the information they provide is corroborated by named sources or material evidence.

2.I. When quoting experts, establish their credibility in the relevant topic.

2.J. Ensure each investigation undergoes at least one round of editing by someone other than the author before publication.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

3.1.A. Be editorially free and politically independent.

3.1.B. Not endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office.

3.1.C. Not conclude any agreement or partnership with a political party or any other public relations and similar activities that could compromise the operation’s reputation for independence and impartiality

3.1.D. Not focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum.

3.1.E. Not employ anyone who holds a salaried and/or prominent position in a political party, government, state or public company under the direct control of a political party or government.

3.1.F. Explicitly address in publications any reasonable conflict of interest or political bias, including from experts or organisations cited.

3.1.H. Have internal policies that bar employees from accepting in a professional context any gifts, favours, or services with advantageous conditions that go beyond common social and courtesy items, and have procedures in place to take action if they do.

3.1.I. Make available and easily accessible on their website these and any other non-partisanship policies (See template in Annex 3)

3.1.J. Only advocate for issues that are relevant to the mission of fact-checking and are compatible with a reputation for independence and impartiality. Organisations that engage in advocacy must set out public guidelines on how they adhere to these standards.

3.2.A. Obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.

3.2.B. Take measures to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny.

3.2.C. Be restrictive, respectful and considerate when mentioning or identifying minors and make efforts to protect their privacy.

3.2.D. Anonymise any personal information that could allow the harassment of people (i.e. at least partially concealing telephone numbers, IDs or passports, bank account numbers, email addresses…).

3.2.E. When appropriate and possible, a right-of-reply should be offered to any named person or organisation who is the source of the inaccurate claim and/or is the subject of significant criticism or allegations.

3.2.F. Put in place measures that aim to address the risk of trauma or harassment experienced by staff as a result of the operation’s activities, including but not limited to providing training to prevent and identify symptoms.

3.3.A. Correct every known mistake promptly with a correction note in the same publication in which the error was made; if the error is only typographical, grammatical or stylistic, a correction note is not needed.

3.3.B. When the original publication in which the mistake was made is not editable, disseminate the correction in the same format and channel as the original so that as far as possible users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.

3.3.E. Make available and easily accessible on their websites a corrections policy and a record of the corrections published over the previous year in the first application for EFCSN membership and of the previous two years upon renewal.

3.3.F. Include in their corrections policy, available and easily accessible on their websites, a detailed account of how they assess requests for corrections.

3.3.G. Offer audiences direct channels to request a correction, within the corrections policy on their website.

3.3.I. Undergo an internal and documented annual review of published corrections to determine whether methodological and procedural changes should be made to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

3.3.H. Inform audiences of the possibility of submitting a complaint to the EFCSN under the terms of article 6 with a link to the complaint form.

4.1.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement that sets out the applicant’s organisational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

4.1.B. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organisation. People or entities holding over 5% of the shares must be disclosed (see template in Annex 4).

4.1.C. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the governance of the operation and/or the parent organisation (see template in Annex 5).

4.1.D. Provide proof of the ownership, legal status and governance of the organisation to the external assessors

4.1.E. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the identity of the editors or decision makers behind the operation, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the positions held by all staff involved in the fact-checking operation’s editorial output, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.G. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement setting out the operation’s mission, values and internal guidelines in place to protect its independence.

4.1.H. Make available and easily accessible on their website the organisation’s bylaws, understood as the rules or statutes that govern the members of an organisation.

4.2.A. Disclose all income sources contributing 1% or 5.000 euros (whichever the higher), from the most recent annual accounts when joining and the last two annual accounts when renewing membership, to external assessors and the Governance Body

4.2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website an updated declaration of all unpaid significant commitments made to other organisations (see Annex 9).

4.2.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website goods and services they receive from external sources, including paid subscriptions or free access to tools, software and/or advertising, that make a material difference to their finances (5% of net income).

4.2.H. Make available and easily accessible on or from their website the full annual accounts of their organisation for each year since joining the EFCSN.