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

Demagog.cz

Website

https://demagog.cz/

Date

14/12/2023

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

1 coordinator, 1 PR specialist, 5 editors, 5 analysts-proofreaders, 14 analysts (mostly interns), 2 social media managers, and 2 IT specialists

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 21/11/2023

The information about the people contributing to the project is easy to find on the website, all members of the team are listed together in one place along with their full names, pictures and even a brief information about their background (pointing to the relevance of their involvement in the project). There is also a good gender balance among the team members.

However, maybe due to personal changes happening since the submission of the application, I was able to find one social media manager instead of two and four proof readers instead of five. So, I just wanted to check the numbers with the Demagog team, if there were any changes.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2023

Yes, there have been some changes in our staff since submitting the application. As of the 5th of December 2023, Demagog.cz has 1 coordinator, 1 PR specialist, 6 editors, 5 analysts-proofreaders, 12 analysts, 1 social media manager, 1 person who is a social media manager and analyst, and 2 IT specialists. Demagog.cz also has 1 workshop manager who is yet to be included on the website.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

Thank you for the update, all is now clear.

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

Our publications are currently focused on the Czech Republic, although we will be expanding our coverage to Slovakia. In the Czech Republic, Demagog.cz fact-checks both regular and pre-election political debates, interviews and social media content. In 2020 we joined Meta's 3PFC program for the Czech Republic.

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/10/2023

The physical check confirmed that the applicant meets the criteria of scope.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/11/2023

Demagog has strong ties to the Czech Republic, primarily focusing on content within the Czech information sphere. This is evident in the team's composition, with at least 14 analysts who are Czech or Slovak native speakers (Czech and Slovak language are very similar). Their proficiency in the language, combined with an in-depth knowledge of local conditions and the nuances of the Czech environment, significantly enhances their expertise in their field. Most of these analysts live in the Czech Republic and are either students or graduates of Czech universities, specializing in fields such as political science, international relations, security, linguistics, law, journalism, European studies, environmental studies, and other related areas. This educational background enhances their capabilities in their roles.

Additionally, Demagog representatives frequently engage with Czech media, discussing their work and highlighting the significance of fact-checking in Czech society [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The organization's work and its coverage in Czech media play a vital role in helping the public better understand the intricate information landscape, especially regarding statements made by Czech politicians and other public figures. This is particularly important as these individuals often introduce disinformation and manipulative narratives from the fringes into mainstream discussions.

The organization also collaborates on projects with other Czech civil society actors, like the recent initiative with the Prague Security Studies Institute focusing on the Czech presidential elections. In addition, the organization conducts workshops and webinars designed to boost media literacy and raise awareness about falsehoods circulating in the information space. Some of these training sessions are also held in collaboration with other Czech civil society organizations, such as EUROPEUM and the Czech branch of People in Need (Člověk v tísni). Furthermore, Demagog partners with Meta to tackle the spread of disinformation on Facebook across the Czech Republic, thereby also enhancing the quality of information available to Czech audiences.

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: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-hodnotime-metodika

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/09/2023

The description of the methodology easily available, detailed and covers the entire process of fact-checking.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/11/2023

The methodology of Demagog is readily accessible on their official website.

It outlines the three primary stages of the fact-checking process: identifying and selecting claims for investigation, the research methodology to assess these claims, and the protocols for writing, editing, and publishing the fact-checks.

The methodology is detailed yet clear enough for the average reader to understand, and it often includes specific examples for clarity, such as the types of statements evaluated.

The approach emphasizes balance, relevance, and verifiability, and offers readers the opportunity to ask questions or express concerns through an online form provided for feedback.

The process for writing and editing fact checks involves several steps and contributors to minimize biases and errors, thereby enhancing credibility.

The ranking system used in the analysis is also clearly defined and comprehensive enough to address the various nuances analysts encounter in their fact-checks.

However, a minor suggestion for improvement would be to rephrase the initial sentence, 'Factcheck znamená ověřování pravdivosti faktických vyjádření politiků./Factcheck means verifying the veracity of factual statements made by politicians.' This could be potentially misleading for readers who might assume that fact-checks only pertain to politicians.

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/10/2023

The practice is addressed by the applicant's methodology. The random check of fact-checks did not reveal any indications that it would not be followed in the practice.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/11/2023

The methodology clearly outlines that while team members adhere to an ethical code that prohibits active involvement in political parties, individual political opinions and preferences are inevitable. To ensure these do not influence their analyses, Demagog employs rigorous methodological processes. For example, at least three other people review each analyst's evaluation for accuracy and impartiality.

This principle is consistently applied in Demagog's fact-checks. The organization upholds the same standards for subjects across the political spectrum, including both government and opposition figures, as well as entities beyond these two.

The approach also stresses transparency concerning any connections to political parties. If an expert consulted for or quoted on a topic has ties to a political entity, this association is disclosed in the evaluation. Furthermore, it is emphasized in the methodology that Demagog is not affiliating with any political party, and explicitly excludes political subjects from its funding sources.

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 24/09/2023

This approach is not explicitly addressed by the methodology likely because of the historical focus on checking the factual political statements where one source of verification usually suffices.
However, as the organization also started to check the content on Facebook, this aspect should be probably reflected in the methodology.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2023

The requested information was added to the methodology section (part called "Jak je zajišťována nezávislost a kvalita hodnocení?" in Czech).

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

Following this change, the applicant is compliant.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/11/2023

While the methodology doesn't explicitly mention that each fact-check must have a minimum of two sources, it does indicate that every fact-check will include appropriate links to multiple sources. This is consistently demonstrated in the fact checks themselves, where each one includes at least two sources. Primary sources are utilized as evidence whenever feasible. If primary sources aren't easily searchable, Demagog reaches out directly to the authors of the statements.

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: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/eticky-kodex-demagogcz

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/10/2023

Ethical code is explicit on those issues and the practice is followed. Even the national actors generally critical of fact-checking - in the name of the defense of the freedom of expression - consider the organization impartial.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/11/2023

After a review of the remaining aspects related to non-partisanship and impartiality cluster, I can confirm that Demagog adheres to these standards. I found no instances of them endorsing or advising the public to vote for any political parties or candidates. There's also no evidence of any agreements or partnerships between Demagog and political parties. Their coverage of topics is balanced (taking into account their focus on national political debates), and they fairly represent subjects from across the political spectrum. The organization has stable policies and mechanisms in place to prevent team members' involvement in political parties, their youth organizations, or state-owned institutions. They also transparently address potential conflicts of interest or political biases, including those from cited experts or organizations.

I have only two concerns that I also voiced in the respective sections below. Firstly, while Demagog’s ethical code clearly prohibits team members from making partisan statements on behalf of the organization, I could not find an outline of the procedures for addressing rule violations in the website section provided. I would like to ask the Demagog team if this information is available elsewhere. Secondly, the same issue applies regarding the lack of outlined procedures for team members who violate the policy against making partisan statements.

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-hodnotime-metodika

The fact-checks listed below, most of which cover multiple statements, illustrate that whether we are checking statements made in an interview, in a tweet or a Facebook post, we apply the same basic approach:

1) Identify all factual claims in a piece of content, the various interpretations of the claims and their broader contexts.

2) Present data, ideally based on primary sources, and link to sources whenever they are available online. If sufficient data is not directly available nor obtainable upon request, we rate the claim as uncheckable.

3) Determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation of the claim that is supported by available data. If not, the claim is false. If yes, the claim is true.

4) If the claim is true, determine whether, when put into context, the claim does not lead the listener/reader to a false conclusion. If it does, the claim is misleading.

Fact-checks of all parties/candidates follow the same rules and the same applies to fact-checked content on Facebook (although Meta's rating system differs from ours).

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/stridani-prezidentu

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/prezidentske-finale-1f2d0fd5-2e23-491b-87e6-bc672e827ef8

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/zavolime-prezidentska-debata

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/statni-duchodovy-fond-v-cesku-nikdy-neexistoval-a-nebyl-tedy-vykraden

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/fotografie-z-roku-2017-vyuzita-proti-uprchlikum-z-ukrajiny
https://demagog.cz/diskuze/neni-trikolora-jako-trikolora

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/sona-pekova-a-americke-biologicke-laboratore-na-ukrajine

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/danuse-nerudova-kandidatka-na-prezidentku

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/andrej-babis-kandidat-na-prezidenta

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/petr-pavel-kandidat-na-prezidenta

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/10/2023

There are no indication of such kind of organization's impartiality.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/11/2023

Demagog clearly outlines its commitment to balanced fact-checking of politicians from all parties and across the political spectrum. Based on the provided samples, I can confirm their equal treatment of the subjects fact-checked.

While reviewing the database of fact-checks and Demagog's 2022 annual report, I noticed a slight difference in the number of fact-checked statements between the Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala and other politicians (f. e. Fiala with 79 fact-checked statements vs Ivan Bartoš, the politician with the second-most fact-checked quotes, with 41 quotes).

However, Demagog's focus on certain politicians is heavily influenced by the guests attending political discussions Demagog focuses on, thus on the media holding these debates and the politicians' own participation in them, instead of intentional bias in their selection process. Notably, Demagog has dedicated an entire report/project (SLIBY VLÁDY PETRA FIALY 2021) to the promises made by Petr Fiala’s government, with Fiala often at the forefront as the head of government.

Additionally, there's no evident neglect of opposition representatives, as they too are subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-hodnotime-metodika

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/10/2023

The Code is explicit on this and there are no indications of the breach of the practice.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/11/2023

Demagog's methodology places a strong emphasis on transparency regarding any connections its consulted experts may have to political parties. If an expert consulted or quoted on a topic is affiliated with a political entity, this association has to be openly disclosed in the evaluation.

In the sample I reviewed, I did not encounter any instances where this was relevant. So, I wanted to ask the Demagog team if they had in the past year or so faced a situation where they consulted an expert affiliated with a political subject.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2023

We seldom rely on experts who are affiliated with a political subject. The majority, if not almost all of our fact-checks can be verified by standard usage of primary and secondary sources without the need to directly contact experts. In March 2023, we only had to point out that an economist and deputy director of a think tank is also an adviser to the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs, whose claim we verified. However, the statement of the adviser was not crucial for the fact-check and we did not have to contact him.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2023

The mentioned fact-check can be found here https://demagog.cz/vyrok/22634

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

Thank you for the

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

Thank you for the example provided. I checked it and as you indicated, the affiliation of the economist is transparently stated. On a side note but I also appreciate the marking of the specific time frame when quoting a video.

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/eticky-kodex-demagogcz

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/10/2023

The Ethical Code is explicit on this and no indication of any such behavior has been registered.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/11/2023

While Demagog's ethical code explicitly prohibits team members from making partisan statements on behalf of the organization, I noticed that it lacks a description of the procedures for addressing situations where this rule is violated. So, I wanted to ask the Demagog team if it is perhaps stated elsewhere?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/12/2023

We have added the last point to our code of ethics ("If a situation arises where these rules are violated by Demagog.cz team members, the project management will meet and any transgression will be dealt with accordingly."). The exact procedure depends on the type of violation and would be an ad hoc solution.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

Thank you for explaining, I understand that it varies from case to case, just wanted to make sure you have this covered and are equipped for it.

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/eticky-kodex-demagogcz

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/10/2023

The Ethical Code is explicit on this and no indication of any such behavior has been registered.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/11/2023

Demagog's ethical code clearly forbids team members from accepting gifts, favors, or services in a professional context. However, I could not find any specifying of the procedures for handling situations when this rule is breached. Therefore, I would like to check with the Demagog team if these procedures are outlined elsewhere.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/12/2023

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

Thank you for elaborating on this. I just wanted to check if you have the processes in place.

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: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/mam-vyhradu-k-hodnoceni-nebo-navrh-na-overeni-kam-se-mohu-obra
https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-hodnotime-metodika

A specific of Demagog.cz is that we largely focus on debates, speeches or interviews and their segments and fact-check all factual statements made during their course. Over the past 11 years we have checked on average more than 90 claims each month (our current average is around 60) and many more during election campaigns. As a result, we have not found it practicable to contact the speakers in reference to each claim. Instead, we communicate with them and their offices when we are unable to find sufficient sourcing for an assessment of their claims.

In addition, we only fact-check statements that are made publicly and where we have access to original recordings or interview transcripts from trustworthy media sources to avoid a risk of fact-checking a misquoted statement.

As for targets of allegations, when available, we do include statements of persons/organizations that are subjects of inaccurate claims (https://demagog.cz/diskuze/smysleny-incident-v-motolske-nemocnici, https://demagog.cz/diskuze/akutni-pripady-infarktu-a-mozkovych-prihod-nemaji-spojitost-s-ockovanim), although these are claims that are also debunked. We do not include any unfounded allegations or criticism in our articles, except when they are fact-checked.

For social media content, we largely avoid naming the originators of claims (see 3.2.B) to avoid exposing users who shared the misinformation unintentionally, and to stay clear from promoting bad actors. Almost all content that we share on social media is spread by multiple users, which makes reaching out to them impractical.

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/10/2023

The applicant's policy in this respect is reasonable given their focus on checking the public pronouncements.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/11/2023

Demagog makes it clear that anyone with comments, concerns, or objections to a particular fact-check can contact the team. The email address for this purpose is easily accessible in several sections of the website. The website also outlines specific steps the team follows upon receiving feedback and comments, including clearly marking any 'corrections' in the updated fact-check. Additionally, they maintain a list of all corrections made, which is available under the process description.

Regarding the practice of seeking a response from the source, I understand that doing so for every fact-check could delay publication, potentially contributing to the spread of false claims. This could negatively impact the public and its view, especially during elections and other periods of heightened information chaos. Nonetheless, I would recommend at least attempting to reach out to the source and setting a deadline for a response (even a tight one). Even though the team usually sources quotes from primary sources like TV debates, there's always a possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

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:

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:

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:

Applicant

Date: 29/05/2023

https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-je-projekt-demagogcz-financovan

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 03/10/2023

Strictly speaking, no such info has been found on the organization's webpage or in the annual report. The likely reason is that such financial commitment is simply not the case, but it needs to be assured by the Governance Body.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 05/12/2023

Demagog.cz indeed does not have any unpaid significant commitments to other organizations. Our finances are listed on the abovementioned website. In July 2023, we have only begun to fact-check untrue content that circulates on Slovakian social media (mainly Facebook). Any user can access such articles directly from our homepage and we also briefly explain the basics of this type of fact-checking.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/12/2023

The comment about fact-checking content on Slovak Facebook was mentioned because we cooperate with Demagog.sk on producing the articles. This collaboration began only after our initial submission of the application for EFCSN. However, it is not on an unpaid basis, we distribute payments to Demagog.sk for their work.

Peter Ucen (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 13/12/2023

From the assessor's point of view, the applicant is de facto compliant.

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 or Belarus”.

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.