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.sk

Website

https://demagog.sk/

Date

18/10/2024

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

Media Literacy: conducting workshops in critical thinking and media literacy for high school students and seniors

Educational activities, including participation on various events on the topics of fighting against disinformation, as well as podcasts - bi-weekly podcasts focusing on disinformation in cooperation with one of major Slovak newspapers
Research activities in the field of disinformation, such as contributing to regular briefs on the situation in Slovakia regarding disinformation

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 19/06/2024

The nature and scope of "research activities" is not clear. Please specify what activities the organisation is/was involved in and provide links to their outputs.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

In cooperation with Jozef Kapusta a Dominik Halvoník from the Department of Computer Science at the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, we have conducted research

analysing the 14 000 claims in the Demagog database, attempting to answer the questions whether politicians do not speak the truth more often before the elections than afterwards, what topics they are most likely to mislead about and what are the most common logical fallacies. We have published the results in a blog on Denník N. The project also resulted in publishing a booklet on logical fallacies distributed to high schools.

We assist with the identification of the most prevalent disinformation narratives in Slovakia for CEDMO Fact-checking Briefs.

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: 18/01/2024

https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/07/2024

The methodology of Demagog.sk is easily accessible on their website and provides a thorough explanation of where and how they find and choose claims for investigation. I appreciate their emphasis on maintaining a balanced selection of politicians for fact-checking, while acknowledging that government politicians appear more often in public discourse. Similarly, during elections, when their capacities are limited, they prioritize candidates based on pre-election polling from various agencies to ensure the most visible candidates are covered. This transparency clarifies to the audience that there is no bias in their selection process.

The methodology clearly states that they do not evaluate opinions and encourages the audience to submit any relevant claims that discuss topics of public interest. They also invite the audience to contact Demagog.sk with any questions or suggestions about their methodology, with clear contact information provided.

The methodology details how fact-checks are written, edited, and published, and who in the organization is responsible for each task. It specifies that at least three people evaluate each claim, which aligns with fact-checking standards. This section also includes direct links to the team members' section so people can see who is responsible for specific tasks.

It is commendable that they send fact-checks via email to the respective politicians being fact-checked, notifying them that they may be approached for further questions and explanations. I also appreciate the section explaining what to beware of when interpreting the fact-checks and ratings of truthfulness, warning against oversimplification. This disclaimer is especially crucial given the highly polarized and charged political and societal climate in Slovakia.

The rating system is explained for both the fact-checks of politicians' claims and the fact-checks for Meta. The system for Meta fact-checks is clearer than the former. For the section on fact-checks of politicians' claims, I suggest using simpler and clearer examples for each category in the system. Also, currently, not all categories have examples, and those that do are quite long and a bit difficult to understand. Highlighting the problematic part or using shorter examples could help make it more straightforward.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/07/2024

A random sample of fact-cheks showed adherence to the methodology.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 25/06/2024

The organisation provides a clear explanation of their fact-checking methodology, including the approach to the evolution of individual statements. The assessment of randomly selected fact-checks showed that this methodology is consistently applied.

While the fact-checking of statements of politicians is very clearly explained, the selection of fact-checks of statements on social media (within the context of the Meta Third Party Fact-Checking Program) could be explained better (see question 2.C). Mixing these two activities in one section of methodology is slightly confusing. Also, fact-checks from social media are presented in the section of websites titled “What we wrote” which can be slightly confusion for readers (https://demagog.sk/napisali-sme).

I would like to stress that these critical remarks are not related to the quality of fact-checks themselves but are more about observation to improve the transparency in the presentation of the methodological approach.

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

We focus on claims that concern current affairs, politics, economics, health, and all areas of major public interest. In political fact-checks, we cover the claims made by politicians in TV and radio debates, concerning current affairs. We also focus on their claims made on their social media. Before elections, we focus on fact-checking major debates and covering the politicians' campaigns. Before selecting a claim on social network to check, we consider how potentially harmful it is for the society, how viral it is and how it influences the public debate.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/07/2024

I confirm that the work of Demagog.sk focuses on topics in public interest, covering a broad spectrum of areas, including economy, health, security of the country, and many more.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/06/2024

Since the organisation focuses on statements made by politicians in media it is possible to argue that verification of their statement en bloc is the issue of public interest. According to assessment of randomly selected fact-checks the organisation focuses on topics of public interest.

The procedure of selecting fact-checked statements on social media is explained only in general terms (incorrect, spreading virally and related to topics relevant to society). Thematically, claims fact-checked on social media are very diverse and, according to the assessor’s opinion, have different levels of relevance/social harm. Please explain your approach towards the selection of relevant statements on social media.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

When considering what material to fact-check, we establish how newsworthy the fact-checked claim is. How close it is to the public, whether it is relevant and what is its impact on the society, including how viral the claim is. For example, when a claim seems less relevant, but we see it being shared, we are more likely to fact-check it. When debunking false information, an important challenge for fact-checkers is to do it as fast as possible, before the disinformation spreads. In crisis situations, such as after the shooting of the prime minister, we attempted to pre-emptively fact-check various claims, some of which have become viral while others haven’t.

We will add this explanation to our website if recommended. We are also open to feedback back on choosing the topics to fact/check on social media, as it is still a new area for us.

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: 18/01/2024

https://www.demagog.sk/eticky-kodex

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 26/06/2024

The organisation is politically independent and has in place regulations preventing the engagement of its members with political parties.

The only unclear case is the partnership of umbrella organisation SGI with former Slovak president Zuzana Čaputová within one of the previous projects. Please explain what policies you applied during the partnership to prevent its impact on fact-checking activities and outline lessons learned.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

Civil Servant Deed of the Year Award is a standalone project with no influence over Demagog.sk or the fact-checking operation. The office of the president gives formal patronage over the award, along with the Representation of European Commission in Slovakia and the Office of the Public Defender of Rights in the past. The aim of the patronages is to add to the serioussness of the event and to increase it's standing. Neither of the institutions have any influence over the course of the project, seleting the nominees or anyny activities. The organisers of the Civil Servant Deed of the Year Award had no communication or contact with the president Zuzana Čaputová.

In the future, we will disclose such cases, we can add the disclaimer about the patronage to fact-checks of Zuzana Čaputová, if recommended.

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

https://www.demagog.sk/eticky-kodex

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/07/2024

After conducting a random review of the fact-checks, I found no affiliations with any political parties, politicians, or political candidates. The same applies to any open support for a political party or candidate. Furthermore, I have not found any mention when I searched for any media coverage that might suggest Demagog.sk openly supports certain political entities.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 26/06/2024

The code of ethics forbids an organisation and its members from endorsing political parties. In relation to the election, the organisation published only articles based on its own fact-checking activities evaluating the statements of candidates. While the podcast at Aktuálně.sk hosted by organisation representatives invites hosts such as academics or activists to present their views on issues of public interest, the assessment did not uncover any instance of endorsement of a particular political party (https://www.aktuality.sk/autor/demagogsk/). In September 2023, before the parliamentary election, the umbrella organisation SGI published a video urging young people to vote, which, however, did not recommend any specific party (https://www.facebook.com/institut.sgi/posts/pfbid0gEtAMVBsBAGrLKbJY7vE8qSTz9enscKziECS3Er9bSFg6Domt4MfzTEB2Dj4tWMFl?locale=cs_CZ).

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

https://www.demagog.sk/eticky-kodex

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/07/2024

The funding information I found shows no contributions from political entities, which would violate the project’s Code of Ethics, except from entities like the EU, and the British and US embassies. Such support for NGOs in CEE is quite common and, in my opinion, should not be regarded as breach.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 26/06/2024

According to the Annual report from 2022, the umbrella organisation SGI was in partnership with Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová within the framework of the project “Clerk Act of the Year” (https://www.governance.sk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/V%C3%9DRO%C4%8CN%C3%81-SPR%C3%81VA_2022.pdf). Please explain how you approach this situation and what are safeguards preventing SGC activities and partnerships to interfere with credibility of Demagog.

Note: According to the opinion of the assessor, statements made by Čaputová were evaluated in the same manner as statements of other fact-check politicians.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

Civil Servant Deed of the Year Award is a standalone project with no influence over Demagog.sk or the fact-checking operation. The office of the president gives formal patronage over the award, along with the Representation of European Commission in Slovakia and the Office of the Public Defender of Rights in the past. The aim of the patronages is to add to the serioussness of the event and to increase it's standing. Neither of the institutions have any influence over the course of the project, seleting the nominees or The organisers of the Civil Servant Deed of the Year Award had no communication or contact with the president Zuzana Čaputová.

In the future, we will disclose such cases, we can add the disclaimer about the patronage to fact-checks of Zuzana Čaputová, if recommended.

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

https://www.demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme

https://demagog.sk/vyrok/49564
https://demagog.sk/vyrok/49558
https://demagog.sk/vyrok/49544
https://demagog.sk/vyrok/49547
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/korcok-vs-pellegrini-duel-v-rtvs
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/duel-korcok-a-pellegrini
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/volby-2024-harabin
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/volby-2024-korcok
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/volby-2024-matovic
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/volby-2024-pellegrini
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/volby-2023-druha-debata-na-tv-joj
https://demagog.sk/diskusia/volby-2023-prva-debata-na-tv-joj

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/07/2024

The practice is noted in Demagog.sk's methodology. In my review of their fact-checks, I did not encounter any undue focus on any particular political party or candidate. The coverage appeared balanced, encompassing the entire political spectrum.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 25/06/2024

The methodology presented on the organisation websites includes commitment of impartiality. The assessment of randomly selected fact-checks and links presented above showed that organisation uses same standard to claims made by politicians from different parties. Moreover, the websites allow to present fact-checked statements according to party membership which transparently demonstrates the impartiality of the organisation.

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

https://demagog.sk/eticky-kodex

https://demagog.sk/podozrenia-z-manipulacie-volieb-su-vymyslene

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/07/2024

This issue is sufficiently addressed in Demagog.sk’s methodology. When a case of potential bias occurred (linked above), Demagog.sk included a disclaimer about it.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 26/06/2024

The organisation outlines general rules for the selection of cited experts and credibly establishes their experts in the fact-checks. However, the issue of their potential bias/conflict of interest is not addressed. Please provide further explanation about the criteria according to which you selected cited experts and evaluated their objectivity.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

When selecting experts, we do not address experts who are members of political parties.

If there is a conflict of interest that concerns the topic of the fact-check, we either try to address a different expert or state the conflict of interest in the article as an explicit disclaimer.

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

Slovak Governance Institute, which is the organisation behind the project Demagog.sk, has been engaging in advocacy activities in the past in the field of education, social inclusion, transparency, and civil participation. However, the operations of Demagog.sk are standalone and not influenced by SGI activities.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2024

Just to confirm from the side of Demagog.sk, does this mean Demagog.sk as such has not been engaged in any advocacy activity itself?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

No, Demagog.sk itself does not engage in advocacy activities.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 26/06/2024

The umbrella organisation SGI focuses on advocacy of issues of public interest (e.g., the “Clerk Act of the Year” project, which rewards civil servants, or the “Link for Mayor” platform for reporting local problems to municipalities). SGI is an unpartisan organisation that does not have any connection with political entities except for the partnership with Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová in one specific project (see 3.1.C).

SGI and Demagog are closely personally connected – Veronika Jursová Prachárová is the SGI director and Demagog analyst, and Veronika Frankovská is the SGI PR Manager and Demagog project manager. These facts are transparently stated on organisation websites. Please explain what policies and practices are in place to make sure that SGI advocacy activities do not interfere with fact-checking.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

SGI is currently not engaged in any advocacy activities. Demagog.sk is a structurally independent project and maintains a fact-checking process free from the director’s undue interference.

SGI’s current mission and objectives emphasize that the organization is focused solely on research and the dissemination of unbiased information. Since its founding, SGI has avoided ties with political parties or any entities with a specific agenda.

Analysts at Demagog.sk rely on credible sources, peer reviews, and precise methodology, which is transparent. There is no interference from the director of SGI concerning quality fact-checking content. In other words, the director adheres to ethical standards that prevent any undue influence or intervention.

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: 18/01/2024

https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme

In cases where we evaluate the statement as false or misleading, we give the affected subjects the opportunity to comment on our analysis and evaluation. If they present us with facts that change the content of the statement, we will additionally verify these facts. If we evaluate the new facts as legitimate, we will add them to the analysis and adjust our evaluation accordingly.

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/07/2024

In the linked "Ako pracujeme/How we work" section, Demagog.sk clearly states they give the fact-checked public officials/politicians notice and ask for further explanations and questions. The fact-checks I reviewed complied with this. However, I could not find a mention if similar practice is carried out when fact-checking social media content beyond that from politicians. So, just wanted to ask about the pratice for this.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

We do not contact users spreading disinformation on social media actively. In the Meta Third Party Fact-Checking Program, the users and pages that have been rated as containing misinformation have the option to appeal the rating, which is addressed through the system of rating the posts. The users have the option to contact us, state their objections to the rating and provide proof. Within three business days, our team processes the appeal, reviews the rating and corrects it, or rejects the appeal, explaining to the user the reasoning behind the decision.

We have added this information to our website.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 26/06/2024

Organisations proactively approach politicians and provide them with the possibility to react. Their reactions are published under the fact-check.

The right-of-reply in the context of fact-checking for Meta is not clear. Please explain the procedure and role of the fact-checking organisation in this process.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

In the Meta Third Party Fact-Checking Program, the users and pages that have been rated as containing misinformation have the option to appeal the rating, which is addressed through the system of rating the posts. The users have the option to contact us, state their objections to the rating and provide proof. Within three business days, our team processes the appeal, reviews the rating and corrects it, or rejects the appeal, explaining to the user the reasoning behind the decision.

We have added this information to our website.

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: 18/01/2024

https://www.demagog.sk/nahlasit-chybu

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 05/07/2024

I do not see any record of corrections, so wanted to ask if there have been any besides the examples in above sections.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

The record of the corrections is in the lower part of the website:
https://demagog.sk/nahlasit-chybu

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 23/06/2024

In the section explaining the approach to corrections websites also presents the list of “The list of corrections since 2022” which includes eight cases. However, the correction presented in question 3.3C is not included. Therefore, the list seems to be included and it would be appropriate to revise it.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 02/08/2024

Thank you very much for pointing this out. In the past, we did not have the list of corrections available on our website, but we added it in order to comply with the EFCSN standards. Therefore we might have missed a correction, probably because in this case the original claim was divided into two claims and each of them was evaluated separately. We have now revised the list and added the missing correction.

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: 18/01/2024

https://demagog.sk/kontakty
https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/07/2024

The organizational structure is clearly outlined on the website. While the information about staff roles could be more detailed, it is clear who leads the organization, who the senior analysts and decision-makers are, and how the system operates.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 23/06/2024

Team structure and members are transparently presented on the section “Contacts”. However, the methodology also mentions the position of “methodolog” which should be different from regular analyst. It is not clear which member of the team holds this position. Please provide further explanation.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

We used to have the role of methodologist in the team, now as we are expanding our scope of work, the third check of the claim is done by a senior analyst on the team. We have revised the information on our website.

Proof of registration/legal status:

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/07/2024

Link to website was provided instead of a file but information there is compliant.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/06/2024

Documents are not attached but needed information are transparently presented at SGI website.

Proof of ownership:

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/07/2024

No file or link was provided, but the information is included on the link above.

Proof of governance structure:

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/07/2024

No file or link was provided, but the information is included on the link above.

Applicant

Date: 18/01/2024

https://demagog.sk/kontakty

Nikoleta Nemečkayová (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/07/2024

Only the bios of interns are missing, only their names are provided. But given the nature of their role, limited competencies and time of staying with Demagog.sk, this is understandable but also something that can be mended and added easily.

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 23/06/2024

Team includes also interns; their full names are list on the website (as well as names of previous interns) but not further information is added. Please explain in more reasoning about not including full information about their background on the website.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

The interns are part of our team for 12 weeks, sometimes they stay for a longer period. We do not have the capacity to update the website so regularly. We do not collect pictures of the interns, although we do have their CVs available and we conduct background checks in order to ensure their independence, non-partisanship or so that we are aware of any potential bias.

More importantly, in the recent years there has been an increasing amount of attacks and harassment of the team members and therefore we would not like to disclose more names and pictures of the team than necessary.

If this is a requirement of the EFCSN Standards, we will include more information about the interns on the website.

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: 18/01/2024

https://www.demagog.sk/eticky-kodex
https://demagog.sk/donori

Jonáš Syrovátka (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 27/06/2024

The majority of donations support the core activity of the organisation – fact-checking political discussions. Meta supports the organisation with the framework of the Third Party Fact-Checking Program. The approach to these activities is transparently described on the organisation's website.

The only activity that has not been sufficiently explained is the support from Google to fight against disinformation in CEE in 2023 and 2024. Please explain the nature of this support.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2024

Google supports the regional cooperation between Demagog Poland, Demagog.cz and Demagog.sk. We have more capacity for communication and exchange of know-how and experience, we have channels to exchange information about disinformation narratives or even share fact-checks and debunks of particular false or misleading claims. We have regular online and offline meetings with our partners.

Moreover, we conduct media literacy workshops for high school students and seniors and prebunking campaigns to prevent people from believing in disinformation. Demagog.sk produces bi-weekly podcasts about disinformation in cooperation with Aktuality.sk, a major Slovak media outlet. We also focus on utilizing AI and technical solutions to improve the process of fact-checking and improving media literacy.

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.