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

CivilNet

Website

https://www.civilnet.am/civilnetcheck/

Date

21/02/2025

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

#CivilNetCheck is CivilNet's fact-checking unit, operating since December 2021. Founded in 2011, CivilNet is one of the leading independent media outlets in Armenia. CivilNet is a program of the Civilitas Foundation, established in 2008. The goal of the Civilitas Foundation is to contribute to the strengthening of Armenia’s democratic development.

Since its inception, CivilNet has provided multi-faceted, evidence-based news and analysis. The establishment of CivilNet’s fact-checking unit as a separate department was motivated by the imperative to counter the flow of disinformation, fake news, and manipulation, and to present the truth to the public.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/12/2024

The provided information was compared with the official ABOUT US section of the website in different languages: https://www.civilnet.am/en/about-us/
Everything is correct and matching in all the languages.

Davit Alaverdyan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 13/11/2024

Please, specify why you have decided to start fact-checking operations.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 13/12/2024

CivilNet launched its dedicated fact-checking unit (#CivilNetCheck) in 2021 in response to the critical challenges facing Armenia's information landscape. In recent years, the fight against disinformation has become vital for Armenia's democratic health, as the country faces significant challenges from disinformation campaigns that threaten democratic values, civic engagement, and public order.

As a leading media organization in Armenia with a substantial audience reach, particularly on social media platforms, we recognized our responsibility to not only provide in-depth, unbiased reporting but also to actively contribute to the development of quality journalism in Armenia. Establishing a fact-checking unit aligns with international best practices, as most major news organizations now maintain dedicated fact-checking divisions.

Our fact-checking operations serve a dual purpose - they not only expose disinformation but also contribute to improving media literacy among the Armenian public. This educational component is crucial for building a more resilient information ecosystem. Our fact-checking unit conducts various activities including identifying and exposing disinformation targeting democratic values and human rights, analyzing statements from government officials, politicians, and public figures, investigating fake news, manipulations, and conspiracy theories across traditional and social media, producing investigative stories, and raising public awareness on critical issues.

Given CivilNet's significant audience reach and strong social media presence, our fact-checking operations can effectively counter disinformation by reaching a broader population segment. This strategic advantage maximizes our impact in promoting accurate information and democratic values. The decision to establish a fact-checking unit reflects our commitment to strengthening Armenia's democratic institutions by combating the spread of disinformation and promoting media literacy while leveraging our established position as a trusted news source to achieve maximum impact.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

CivilNet has more than 40 employees. As of now, the #CivilNetCheck team consists of three people: an editor and journalists who specialize in fact-checking journalism and have several years of experience in the field.

The editor of #CivilNetCheck is Ani Grigoryan, whose responsibilities include selecting and approving topics and materials, checking and editing journalists' articles, and rechecking the facts in them, as well as writing articles. Leading #CivilNetCheck, she is also responsible for keeping the department up-to-date, implementing new tools, and meeting international standards of fact-checking journalism. #CivilNetCheck journalists Hayk Hovhannisyan and Shushan Stepanyan are the main authors of CivilNet’s fact-checking materials. They monitor the media, social networks, and the wider internet, follow the speeches and interviews of political and public figures, identify the statements and claims that need to be verified, carry out their verification and, after coordinating with the editor, prepare articles and materials about them. Furthermore, #CivilNetCheck collaborates with independent fact-checking journalists, who contribute articles to the team's efforts on a freelance basis.

Videos and visuals published by #CivilNetCheck are produced with the help of CivilNet's video production team. Articles and materials are published and distributed on social networks through CivilNet's social media specialists. More information on the specialists mentioned above can be found at this link.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/12/2024

The provided information on the team and people working at CivilNet is clear and available online. The user can check and see the background of the team. There is the hashtag #CivilNetCheck next to the staff members: https://www.civilnet.am/en/our-team/

Davit Alaverdyan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2024

Isn't there a conflict of interest in the fact that CivilNet is engaged in both the production of online news and fact-checking of other media?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 13/12/2024

We acknowledge this is an important question that deserves a transparent response. Our fact-checking unit operates with strict editorial independence from our news production team, following clear methodological guidelines and ethical principles. Like many reputable international media organizations such as AFP, Reuters, and Associated Press that maintain both news production and fact-checking operations, we have implemented robust safeguards to ensure the integrity of our fact-checking work.

Our fact-checking methodology is transparent and publicly available. We apply the same rigorous verification standards to all content, regardless of its source - including our own reporting. When fact-checking claims, our team relies on primary sources, official documents, expert consultations, and cross-verification of information. All sources are clearly cited in our fact-checks, allowing readers to verify our findings independently.

Furthermore, CivilNet's established reputation for editorial independence and commitment to journalistic integrity strengthens our position as a fact-checker. Our fact-checking unit has demonstrated its impartiality by fact-checking claims across the political spectrum, including government officials, opposition figures, and various media outlets, without bias. We believe that our experience in quality journalism actually enhances our ability to conduct thorough fact-checks, as we have developed extensive expertise in verification techniques and source evaluation through our journalistic work.

To maintain transparency and accountability, we welcome feedback and corrections from our audience and other media organizations. If any errors are identified in our fact-checks, we have a clear correction policy in place. This commitment to transparency and accountability helps ensure the credibility and reliability of our fact-checking operations.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

The #CivilNetCheck team also supports CivilNet journalists in preparing articles with accurate facts and without manipulation. If necessary, the team checks the facts in the other journalists' materials, provides information from various open sources and registries, and contributes to making the most accurate and fact-based CivilNet products. In addition, the team often acts as trainers for journalists in various courses, teaching fact-checking tools and media literacy to the general public.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/12/2024

The provided information is correct. CivilNetCheck team often provides courses on fact-checking and media literacy in Armenia in partnership with other media support organizations.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

We are looking forward to many exciting programs and initiatives in the upcoming year. Since becoming a member of the IFCN network in 2023, #CivilNetCheck has been included in Meta's third-party fact-checking program and has been cooperating with Meta since July 2024 to fight fake news on Armenian-language social media. This collaboration marks a crucial milestone for us and our country, enhancing our ability to combat fake news in Armenian-language content effectively. Meta cooperates with an Armenian media outlet for the first time, and the fight against fake news in Armenian-language content becomes more effective.

Armenia's media landscape lacks fact-checking journalists, a gap we encountered during our last attempt to expand our team. To bridge this gap, we are going to organize a three-month incubator program for three individuals interested in fact-checking. Participants will receive mentorship from experienced journalists at CivilNet, gaining essential skills in journalism and fact-checking. The most promising mentee may be offered a position within our team.

In addition to our day-to-day work, we also aim this year to produce short videos on media literacy, fact-checking tools, open-source investigations, internet security and other important topics. We believe it will be a comprehensive resource for the public and, considering the large number of CivilNet followers, it will reach a wider audience.

In addition, during the coming year, we plan to incorporate AI tools into our work processes and participate in new seminars and various training sessions to develop our skills.

Additionally, we hope that in the near future we will join The European Fact-Checking Standards Network.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/12/2024

The fact-checking team has solid plans and goals for the next year. Most importantly all goals are realistic to achieve.

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: 16/08/2024

As outlined in our methodology, we have several criteria for selecting materials to fact-check.

We always answer these following questions:

Does the statement seem wrong or misleading?
Is the topic relevant and of public interest?
If it is wrong, can it harm the public or democracy by distorting public opinion? We do not address slips of the tongue and minor mistakes.
Are there facts in the statement that are verifiable and can they be singled out? We never verify or comment on opinions, predictions and rhetoric.
After reading or listening to the statement, will an average person have questions as to its accuracy?
How much has the information spread? We investigate whether the statement or claim has been shared and reprinted by media outlets with large audiences and high visibility, as well as by various individuals and platforms on social media.
Is it possible for the information to be further disseminated or repeated by other people? We also study how quickly information spreads and generates interactions.

If a circulating topic does not meet any of these criteria, we do not address it. Also, we do not deal with opinions or predictions.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/12/2024

A comprehensive review of several random fact-checks showed that the applicant’s work mostly focuses on topics in the public interest. Several publications in 2024 showed that the applicant increased the volume of the fact-checks due to the political situation in the country. It clearly showed that the applicant feels the pulse and their focus is on the topics in the public interest: from the border delimitation between Armenia and Azerbaijan to the inner political processes in the country.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

Both our office phone number and email address are prominently displayed on the homepage of our website. Readers frequently call us, asking to verify certain information. We also receive a significant number of emails.

In addition, #CivilNetCheck often posts on its social media pages, encouraging readers to send in any suspicious or incorrect information(Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, X). Our social media pages are very active, and we frequently receive inquiries through them as well.

Here are several examples of such posts.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=893446196151140&set=pb.100064573034606.-2207520000&type=3

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=885100936985666&set=pb.100064573034606.-2207520000&type=3

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=881837603978666&set=pb.100064573034606.-2207520000&type=3

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=855371229958637&set=pb.100064573034606.-2207520000&type=3

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 11/12/2024

On the CivilNetCheck website there is not a button available that a reader can press and submit possible claims for verification. However, the phone number, email address and social media pages are available for the public to reach out to CivilNetCheck team. That’s why the applicant follows the Code of Standards of the EFCSN. Therefore, it’s recommended to make available and easily accessible on the applicant’s website a channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification and encourage users to send claims to check. It’s better to add a button in the future.

Also, from time to time, there are social media posts on different platforms of CivilNet about the possibility to submit claims for fact-checking by the public. The applicant shared with the assessor enough information about this. Finally, based on the methodology available publicly on the website of the applicant, it is clear what readers of CivilNetCheck can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

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: 16/08/2024

We confirm that we are editorially free and politically independent.

More information here:

CivilNet’s Vision, Mission and Values

CivilNetCheck’s Methodology

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

The applicant is editorially free and politically independent. Their fact-checks cover all the political spectrum of Armenia (the power party and the opposition fractions), including also the political parties not being in the Armenian Parliament. Based on the applicant’s publicly available policies, work, and funding sources and partnerships, there is no direct and indirect impact on the editorial board. The fact-checkers of CivilNetCheck are not partisan and have never been a part of any political party/initiative.

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: 16/08/2024

In #CivilNetCheck, we have a strict policy of never writing articles based on information from anonymous sources. Even if there are cases where information from an anonymous source seems relevant for an article, if we cannot find additional sources to corroborate it, we refrain from covering it.

CivilNet’s other sections generally also avoid publishing articles based on information from anonymous sources. However, in exceptional cases, the editorial team verifies the accuracy of the information with multiple sources and ensures that the identity of the anonymous source remains protected under all circumstances.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

The applicant explained how their fact-checking operation approaches this practice, however they did provide an example. When reviewing random samples of fact-checks to check for compliance, there were several documents where the applicant obscured the image of subjects (like personal data, such as passport number, phone number, etc. of the main person of the investigations).

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

In our articles, we never target individuals. Instead, we focus on correcting the disinformation itself. If the source of the fake news is not a public official, media outlet, or someone with a large audience, we only address it if the disinformation has spread widely. However, there are instances where we do not mention the source at all to avoid drawing further attention to it.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

The applicant clearly explained their approaches to this matter. Also, the random samples of fact-checks showed that the publications are written in a way to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

We are very diligent about not disclosing personal information in our materials. For example, when we need to publish a document to prove a fact, we make sure to obscure any potentially sensitive details, such as address, IDs, or other data that could be problematic. This careful approach ensures that personal information remains protected while still providing necessary evidence.

Here is an example: https://www.civilnet.am/news/785314/

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

When checking the fact-checks of the applicant it was clear that the CivilNetCheck team follows this practice. Also, they have shared an example that clarifies how the data is blurred / anonymized to close any personal information that could allow the harassment of people.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

Here is an example: https://www.civilnet.am/news/785314/

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

CivilNetCheck’s Methodology (How do we choose which claims to check?)

As outlined in our methodology, we first contact the person or organization making the claim, asking for the facts and data that support it. If they provide convincing evidence, we don't pursue it further, unless there’s public doubt or debate. However, if they don’t cooperate or the evidence is insufficient, we conduct our own fact-checking.

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

The policy of the right-of-reply is outlined in the methodology, also the applicant has several samples where it was clear how this policy works in practice. The applicant tries to contact the person first before even the publication / investigation is published when it’s appropriate and possible.

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: 16/08/2024

We have had only one instance where we needed to correct a previously published article.

The case concerns the actions of the police during protests in Yerevan on June 12, 2024. Protesters, journalists on-site, and representatives of NGOs claimed that the police did not issue a warning before using special measures. The police, on the other hand, insisted that a warning was given.

We reviewed several live streams from the scene, none of which captured the police issuing a warning. Journalists on-site also confirmed that they did not hear any warning.

After publishing our report, a video surfaced, sent by one of our readers, in which the police warning can indeed be heard. The footage was taken from a position very close to the police line. It turns out that the police had given a warning, but the volume was so low that journalists, protesters, and cameras recording from a distance could not hear it.

In light of the new video evidence, we issued a correction, updated the article. Alert text is placed at the top of the article explaining what has been fixed and why. We also published a new article and explained what happened.

Also we updated social media posts on this topic and shared a new article.

First version: https://www.civilnet.am/news/781922/

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CivilNet.TV/posts/pfbid02niGycUAMnhpeWw24qvskd6JPA98Hs8EUfoW8UR635UsbPfnv4Wk4vzLZMSWAMiUql

Corrected version: https://www.civilnet.am/news/

On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CivilNet.TV/posts/pfbid02tw79qKSpxmHCqiDY6n6TSjS6ER5E6HS2s2penrnnBge3GYbYxkgtHYEBsPdSdjawl

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

An example was shared with the EFCSN. It’s clear that the correction was disseminated in the same format and channels as the original so that as far as possible users of the original see the correction and the corrected version. In the original version there is the link to the corrected version too.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

N/A

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

The applicant has a policy on acknowledge the addition of any new information to a publication in an update note in the same publication, however, there is no example to share. The review of the fact-checks could not find any of those, however, this practice is outlined in the methodology.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 13/12/2024

This is a part of the methodology. Corrections and Complaints Policy

"Transparency is important in both receiving information and presenting it. Although the #CivilNetCheck team makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the materials, errors cannot be avoided. The team fixes them quickly and clearly. They do not hide and do their best to make corrections appear in the same news cycle, highlighting the fact that a correction has been made.

Readers and others can contact us by email, via our Facebook page or by calling us directly in case they spot a mistake in our articles or to dispute any material. #CivilNetCheck will review all submissions to ensure they are correct, and will correct any errors in the published materials.

If a fact-checked material contains an essential, factual error, we make a correction. An alert text is placed at the top of the article explaining what has been fixed and why. Then, the correction is made in the text of the article and, if necessary, is reflected in the article’s title and verdict. It is also possible to refer to and explain the same topic in a separate article."

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.

Applicant

Date: 16/08/2024

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

There is no data on this at the applicant website. However, the CivilNet is a signatory of the Media Observatory Body of the Yerevan Press Club, and if needed an independent review of a complaint if the subject of an article is not satisfied after an internal complaints process has been followed can be submitted. There is a note on this at the applicant’s website.

Davit Alaverdyan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2024

It is worth noting CivilNet's participation in the Armenian Media Ethics Observatory (https://mediaethics.am/en/members) and adoption of their ethical principles (https://ypc.am/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Code-of-Ethics_arm_edites_2023.pdf)

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 13/12/2024

In our methodology and Corrections and Complaints Policy, we have established a clear pathway for handling disputes about our fact-checks. When subjects of our fact-checks are not satisfied after our internal complaints process has been completed, we direct them to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). We provide a direct link to IFCN's complaint mechanism where people can report suspected violations of fact-checking standards. This aligns with international practices as IFCN serves as an independent authority that oversees adherence to fact-checking principles and can review complaints about its verified signatories.

Thank you for noting this important update. CivilNet is a signatory of the Media Observatory Body of the Yerevan Press Club and has adopted its ethical principles. This provides another layer of accountability, as anyone with concerns about our content can apply to the Armenian Media Ethics Observatory for review. This dual oversight - both international through IFCN and local through the Media Ethics Observatory - ensures comprehensive accountability and adherence to professional standards in our fact-checking work.
We will incorporate into our methodology this dual accountability system.

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: 16/08/2024

All this information available on our website: About us section
https://www.civilnet.am/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/%D5%8D%D5%AB%D5%BE%D5%AB%D5%AC%D5%AB%D5%A9%D5%A1%D5%BD-%D5%B0%D5%AB%D5%B4%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%A1%D5%B4%D5%AB-%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%B8%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%A4%D6%80%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%A9%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6%D5%A8.pdf

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 12/12/2024

The applicant shared the requested information in PDF which is available on the website (the statutes of the Civilitas). Also, there is a public data on beneficiary ownership of the foundation available online: https://www.e-register.am/am/companies/1551455/declaration/a97eed8c-b8c9-4f1b-a440-766c2f15502f

Proof of registration/legal status:

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

The information disclosed under this standard is confidential and is only disclosed to the assessors and the Governance Body of the EFCSN.

Proof of ownership:

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

The information disclosed under this standard is confidential and is only disclosed to the assessors and the Governance Body of the EFCSN.

Proof of governance structure:

Final Ratings

First assessor rating :

Compliant

Second assessor rating :

Compliant

Conversation

The information disclosed under this standard is confidential and is only disclosed to the assessors and the Governance Body of the EFCSN.

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:

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.L. Report on the operation’s impact on issues of public interest

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.