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

Website

https://demagog.org.pl/

Date

25/05/2023

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

Besides fact-checking, our area of activities concern:

- Education:

We run the media literacy project called Fact-checking Academy in which we conduct various workshops and seminars for various groups, such as teachers, students, elderly. https://akademia.demagog.org.pl/

We have developed our own e-learning platform to further amplify the scope of our work. https://platforma.demagog.org.pl/

- Podcast:

We run our own Podcast in which we discuss with our guests - experts, journalists, researchers, various important and pressing matters related to fact-checking, misinformation, VLOPs policies etc. https://demagog.org.pl/podcast/

- Advocacy:

As a team of experts and researchers in the field of misinformation, we are often engaged in various advocacy efforts in which we share our knowledge and expertise. Our public activities concern such areas like:

- media literacy
- popularization of science
- fighting disinformation
- transparency of public life
- media freedom
- civil society development.

- Campaigns:

In order to further promote our work, educate society and build strong misinformation resilience, we are conducting various promotional and informational campaigns. So far, we've done two such campaigns:

- Facts in public debate: https://demagog.org.pl/fakty-w-debacie/
- Don't be a bot: https://niebadzbotem.pl/

On the anniversary of the Russian invasion, we have started our third campaign, aimed at highlighting tactics used by Russian disinformation operations. https://demagog.org.pl/zrodloprawdy/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 14/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

1. We have updated our methodology to better correspond with the commitments and requirements of the Code.

https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/
https://demagog.org.pl/jak-sprawdzamy-fake-newsy/

In particular:

- We have updated our "truth" definition to explicitly include the requirement of two independent sources.
- We have described in more detail the criteria of selecting fake news content to debunk - explaining types of harmful misinformation.
- We have added to our Correction policy section explicit possibility of "right to reply".

2. We have updated our Declaration of Impartiality to include the explicit prohibition of any gifts received in a professional context. We have also added additional restriction on prohibition of any kind of political activism for members of our organization.
https://demagog.org.pl/stowarzyszenie-demagog-pierwsza-w-polsce-organizacja-factcheckingowa/

3. We have listed all of our services and tools that we use on a preferential basis (free or discounted). https://demagog.org.pl/finansowanie-i-majatek-stowarzyszenia-demagog/

4. We have clearly defined the scope and nature of our advocacy activities: https://demagog.org.pl/stowarzyszenie-demagog-pierwsza-w-polsce-organizacja-factcheckingowa/

5. We have translated all of our publicly required information to Russian and Ukrainian.

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 20/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

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: 20/02/2023

We explain our methodology here:https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/ and here: https://demagog.org.pl/jak-sprawdzamy-fake-newsy/

Russian version: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Ukrainian version: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/metodologia/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 20/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/03/2023

While the description of methodology stresses that the approach is qualitative, at the same time it states that "We analyze all claims that can be verified." This leaves open a question about the selection process: on the one hand, the organization employs media monitoring services that allow them to get a general picture of the public sphere -- they know what politicians are saying; but on the other hand, it's likely that verifying all of the factual claims that politicians say each day are is not feasible (the organization says that the analyzed sample is "strictly qualitative"). The description of methodology should be clearer about the selection process of verification.

The research process to evaluate claims and the rating system used are described clearly.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

We are fact-checking statements made by politicians as well as debunking fake news that are relevant to the public debate. We have it stated explicitly in the methodology, both here: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/ ("the statement must have substantive content and be relevant to the public debate) and here: https://demagog.org.pl/jak-sprawdzamy-fake-newsy/ (defining the harmful types of misinformation).

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 20/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/03/2023

The application stresses that they are assessing claims by politicians and debunking fake news, but at least the Russian-language articles are focused more on fakes (in particular, false posts on social media) and Russian propaganda. The Polish language version, which I accessed through Google Translate, indeed pays considerable attention to claims made by politicians. This difference is understandable, given that the target audience for the Polish language content likely differs from that of Russian language content. In any case, these investigations do fall under the scope of public interest.

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: 20/02/2023

Our commitment to impartiality and independence is stated explicitly:

1. in our values and mission here: https://demagog.org.pl/stowarzyszenie-demagog-pierwsza-w-polsce-organizacja-factcheckingowa/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/davajte-poznakomimsa-poblize/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/davajte-poznajomimosa-blizce/

2. in our methodology here: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/metodologia/

3. in our financial section here: https://demagog.org.pl/finansowanie-i-majatek-stowarzyszenia-demagog/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/finansirovanie/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/finansuvanna/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/03/2023

The required policies are available to the public. The policies state that Demagog is editorially free and non-partisan. Steps have been taken against the possibility of outside intervention in its editorial decisions, for example, they do not accept material benefits or privileges and do not engage in political campaigning.

The page on financing should explicitly state the steps that are being taken to avoid possibilities that funding sources could influence the editorial work of Demagog. This page https://demagog.org.pl/ru/davajte-poznakomimsa-poblize/ states that "funding does not affect the editorial work", and this page https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/ notes that external sources of funding cannot influence the work of Demagog. However, more details about how it is ensured would be welcome.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

We don't use sources that could be perceived as a conflict of interest in regards to our fact-checking outcome. Selection of sources is described in our methodology here: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/

When we introduce an expert to our fact-check we always include his/her affiliation.

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 16/03/2023

The methodology page does not explicitly mention the treatment of experts. It only says that "publications by state and research institutions are prioritized (over opinions of individual experts)". However, the published articles indeed show that records and hard evidence dominate over expert assessment, which diminishes the possibility of conflicts of interest that this section refers to.

The organization has not provided any examples of how conflicts of interest have been addressed. Of course, it is possible that they have been able to avoid such situations, but there is insufficient information in the application to make a judgement.

It has republished articles from other publications about Meta without adding a note that informs about the cooperation between Demagog and Facebook. Articles like these https://demagog.org.pl/analizy_i_raporty/meta-nie-skomentuje-swoich-planow-odejscia-od-crowdtangle/ are critical toward Meta and in public interest, but adding a disclosure note still would be welcome.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

We’ve added the sentence specifying the choice of experts:
https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/
Powołujemy się na opinie wiodących ekspertów i naukowców z danej dziedziny, biorąc pod uwagę ich specjalizację, a także dotychczasowy dorobek naukowy.

In Russian:

Мы приводим мнения ведущих экспертов и ученых в данной области с учетом их специализации и современных научных достижений.
https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

We plan to implement a proposed disclosure note in the future for better transparency.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

I'm marking this as Compliant.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

This is regulated by the Declaration of Impartiality. https://demagog.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Deklaracja-Bestronnosci.pdf

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 27/03/2023

Please describe the procedures in situations involving the receipt of gifts or favors.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

This is regulated by the Declaration of Impartiality (point 7).

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/05/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/03/2023

Adequate policy against partisanship is in place. It is sufficient, because a team member needs to put their signature under such a document. I am not aware of any evidence that this standard has been breached.

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: 20/02/2023

This is outlined in our updated methodology in the correction's policy section: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/metodologia/

We utilized this policy in one of our recent investigations when we contacted the person that was the central figure of the whole article. https://demagog.org.pl/analizy_i_raporty/gdzie-kroluje-jerzy-z-ukryte-terapie-w-sieci/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 17/03/2023

The Polish version of the methodology document has a section, "Amendments and corrections," which the Russian language document does not have. The section states that an opportunity is being offered to the persons and institutions examined to respond, "especially" when a given statement or information is inaccurate and requires clarification in order to reliably verify the facts. The word "especially" attracts attention, because the right to response should be understood more broadly.

The Guide for EFCSN Assessors states, "what is important is that the organization has a process through which they decide when to offer a right-of-reply and that this criteria is reasonable and does not compromise the accuracy of a fact-check." The information in the methodology does not make it possible to evaluate the decision process regarding whether to grant an opportunity to respond to Demagog's findings.

The Russian language content mostly covers cases where asking a source of a claim for a response would be problematic, because the verified claims mostly are either propaganda, scams, or social media users of unclear motivations or identity. Thus, it can be argued that these are not the cases where a response would be "appropriate and possible."

Assessor

Non Compliant

Date: 23/03/2023

In the Polish language fact-checks, where claims of politicians are being examined, asking for a response of a person whose claims are being verified is more feasible. However, here, too, Demagog does not appear to routinely employ the practice of offering the subject of an article an opportunity to respond. It could be argued that usually the fact-checkers' conclusions based on the evidence they have unearthed are unambiguous enough so that there's little that the author of the original claim can say — but, if that is the case, such a position is questionable. Information about how a person who has been found out to have stated false information responds is important.

For example, if Magdalena Sroka has stated the falsehood that under PiS, no nurseries have been built, she should be able to respond to the finding that this is not true. Is she refuses, this should be noted in the article: https://demagog.org.pl/wypowiedzi/za-rzadow-pis-nie-powstal-ani-jeden-zlobek-falsz/

Even more important the right to response would have been in this case: https://demagog.org.pl/wypowiedzi/doktryna-nato-przewidywala-oddanie-polowy-polski-falsz/ The analysis of Marcin Horała's claim is based mostly on the interpretation of Nato documents and expert commentary. Horała's explanation regarding his claim would have been appropriate here.

The application lists an example where the authors of an article have engaged with the subject of an article, but this really should be a much more widespread practice by Demagog's fact-checkers — or a more thorough explanation should be given as to why the responses of the article subjects in many cases are not being included.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 04/05/2023

We’ve added the Correction Policy section to the Russian methodology page: Изменения и исправления
https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Regarding the “right to reply” policy towards politicians. Currently, we proactively seek reply from politician generally only in those cases when there is a risk of us misinterpreting the original claim or if the claim provides suspiciously accurate data that we can’t find in open sources (suspiciously accurate means that we suspect that the politician has acquired this data in some specific source, that we are not aware of).

Our internal communication with politicians is a difficult process in which in many cases we are even unable to receive their non copyrighted image for the purpose of presenting their photo in the fact-check, despite many attempts of contacting them. There are also other challenges, like the risk of sealioning by certain political actors that are constantly spreading disinformation or efforts to amend their original intention (I didn’t mean X, which you fact-checked, instead I meant Y). We understand our role as fact-checkers to fact-check the claim in its natural environment and original context in a way that it was presented to the audience, readers etc.

Interesting case in that regard is our recent fact-check of Janusz Cieszyński, in which we highlighted his correction, but nonetheless went through with analyzing his original claim, because it received significantly more reach than his correction which was in a Twitter thread, and not the original tweet: https://demagog.org.pl/wypowiedzi/jaki-koszt-nfz-generuje-1-proc-pacjentow/
Right of reply is a relatively new policy for us which we have added as per required by the EFCSN’s Code and we hope to improve it, seeking the feedback and best practices among the fact-checking community. We see it as a more strategic process so it’s important for us to understand whether or not currently our right of reply policy is sufficient and those remarks can serve for us a recommendation going forward, or is it something that needs to be changed immediately, in which case we will treat it as our top priority.

We think that very interesting case of implementing this policy provides Fullfact, that somewhat mitigates the risks of sealioning and going back-and-forth with updates of reply by politician, then us additional fact-checking that reply if it’s still misinformative, then the politician responding to our updated fact-checking, etc.
https://fullfact.org/news/keir-starmer-gmb/

We’re discussing potential improvements to the right to reply internally, but we need to know if it’s something that can be provided rather in a renewal assessment.

Assessor

Non Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 08/05/2023

1) The correction policy in Russian has been added.

2) It is simply a good journalistic practice to ask for comments from people who are being reported on. I hear you when you are explaining the problems that may come with such a practice, but that is not a reason not to do it. If a person who has made the claim engages in non-constructive and manipulative communication, fact-checkers do not need to play along and they are free to ignore or call out the tricks these people try to use. This principle primarily is a courtesy to those people who are willing to engage in honest conversation and make their case. Without asking, one might not know where their claims come from and what justification they are based on — but this may be important information.

Admittedly, EFCSN leaves certain ambiguity regarding the situations when fact-checkers should be seeking a reply. However, at least Demagog's Methodology section should explicitly describe your approach to this.

I'll leave the EFCSN Governance Body to make the final decision regarding whether Demagog's current policy suffices. I'm marking this as "Needs more information" so that this is highlighted during the final review, but this is not meant as a requirement for any further explanations or other immediate steps from Demagog.

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.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

Download File

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 27/03/2023

Please describe the training you have provided to your staff, and the protocols in place to handle cases of abuse and psychological distress.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

It’s a best practice. Currently, we don’t provide specific measures regarding it.

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/05/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 04/05/2023

It’s a best practice. Currently, we don’t provide specific measures regarding it.

Assessor

Non Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

Yes. This mark was not meant as a criticism that needs to be addressed, but simply as a note that the organization is neither Compliant with this voluntary criterion, nor there is a Need for more information. If I had a different option to choose here, I would choose something that would not create a misunderstanding.

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: 20/02/2023

Our corrections policy is described here: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/metodologia/

All of our corrections are presented here: https://demagog.org.pl/tematy/korekty/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 17/03/2023

The Polish language section has a clear and justified correction policy, but the Russian language version does not include this section.

The corrections are clearly marked in the respective articles, and the previous version of the assessment is also being preserved. However, it could also be argued that the end result, which preserves both the initial text and the new one might look a bit confusing at first, and other approaches on how to better present the history of the article could be considered.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

Russian methodology page was updated with Corrections Policy: Изменения и исправления https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/
We are discussing internally how we can better present visually our corrections and updates.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

I'm marking this as Compliant.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

https://twitter.com/DemagogPL/status/1613949259874795521?s=20

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 17/03/2023

The provided example shows how Demagog approaches corrections to non-editable content. The exchange on Twitter indicates that Demagog's policy prohibits it from deleting the initial non-editable content, and they only add a new version to it. The methodology section does not explicitly discuss non-editable content. However, an argument could be made for the deletion of the erroneous post and the creation of a new one, in which a screenshot of the erroneous post and the explanation of the error could be posted. Leaving the original non-editable post unchanged enables false information to continue to be shared online, because not all of the audience members will notice and refer to the corrected material. This is the approach described in the Guide for EFCSN assessors. (I would add that it would be even better if the screenshot image contained a note that there is an error.) The current approach by Demagog could be reconsidered.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

We have had a couple of rate changing corrections in the past year.

Such was the case with the correction mentioned in the 3.3.B in which fact-check rating was changed from "truth" to "partly false". We've explained in our fact-check what lead us to the mistake that we've made. https://demagog.org.pl/wypowiedzi/szpitale-tona-w-dlugach-ile-wynosi-zadluzenie-placowek-zdrowia/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 17/03/2023

The provided example shows that the change of conclusions is being clearly explained.

However, this case, where the assessment also was substantially changed, is more intriguing: https://demagog.org.pl/wypowiedzi/bogata-warszawa-nie-chce-miec-dzieci-statystyki-temu-przecza/

The update indicates that the newest data contradict the trend in the previous statistical publications, which appears to be the basis of the initial assessment. However, the update says that "Three days before Aleksandra Gajewska's statement, the latest calculations were published in the database." This suggests that these data should have been available to fact-checkers at the time of the assessment, but for some reason were not used. The article could have explained or reflected on the choices the fact-checker had made.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

https://demagog.org.pl/wypowiedzi/czy-otwarcie-szkol-wplynelo-na-zeszloroczny-wzrost-zakazen/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 29/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 17/03/2023

The Polish language version states that the new, corrected version of the analysis is being added, and the erroneous version is being left but the initial version is clearly marked.

The corrections are being carried out according to this policy.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 23/03/2023

The Russian language version does not describe the corrections policy.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

Russian methodology page was updated with Corrections Policy: Изменения и исправления https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

I'm marking this as Compliant.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

Corrections policy: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/metodologia/

Record of corrections: https://demagog.org.pl/tematy/korekty/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 30/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 17/03/2023

In the Polish language version, the corrections policy is available on the website, and it also contains a link to articles that have been corrected or amended.

In the Russian language version, such policy is absent from the methodology page.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

Russian methodology page was updated with Corrections Policy: Изменения и исправления https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

I'm marking this as Compliant.

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: 20/02/2023

We don't provide independent review option of a particular fact-check but we do highlight the possibility of submitting complaint to the IFCN or EFCSN here: https://demagog.org.pl/nasza-metodologia-jak-weryfikujemy-wypowiedzi/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/metodologia/

Ukrainian https://demagog.org.pl/uk/metodologia/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 30/03/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Non Compliant

Date: 17/03/2023

The Polish language version has links through which a report to EFCSN can be made. The Russian language version does not show them.

However, this section is primarily about whether other third-party institutions can be consulted about Demagog's work, such as a national press council. Such action is not offered, which is the reason for the "Non compliant" mark here.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 04/05/2023

It’s a best practice.

Assessor

Non Compliant

Date: 10/05/2023

Same as above: since this is a Best practice, the mark here was not meant to mean that its fulfillment is compulsory.

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: 20/02/2023

https://demagog.org.pl/stowarzyszenie-demagog-pierwsza-w-polsce-organizacja-factcheckingowa/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/davajte-poznakomimsa-poblize/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/davajte-poznajomimosa-blizce/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/04/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 17/03/2023

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 23/03/2023

1. ✔️ Demagog is a fact-checking organization (not part of a larger organization)
2. ✔️ The statutes indicate that its home city is Warsaw; it operates in Poland and other countries
3. ✔️ The legal status is: association. This section https://demagog.org.pl/finansowanie-i-majatek-stowarzyszenia-demagog/ states that one of the sources of income is additional economic activity that is regulated separately from the public benefit activity, which implies that Demagog is a public benefit (and non-profit?) organization.
4. ❌ The registration number of the organization is not stated on the provided links. It has been published on other pages of the website, but it is hard to find it if one does not know where to look.
5. ❌ Owners also have not been explicitly stated.

P.S. At the bottom of the document https://demagog.org.pl/stowarzyszenie-demagog-pierwsza-w-polsce-organizacja-factcheckingowa/ it states that this information is also available in Russian and Ukrainian, but these links do not work. The Russian and Ukrainian language links that are provided in the application work, though.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

We’ve added the KRS number (registry number), both in Polish: https://demagog.org.pl/stowarzyszenie-demagog-pierwsza-w-polsce-organizacja-factcheckingowa/ and Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/davajte-poznakomimsa-poblize/
Legally speaking, there is no formal ownership of the Demagog Association. Even the members of the Association cannot be perceived as the “owners” of the organization. As a non-profit NGO, all of the assets of Demagog Association are owned by the Association itself. We publish the membership of both legal bodies of the Association: the Board and the Revision Committee

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

I'm marking this as Compliant.

Applicant

Date: 20/02/2023

https://demagog.org.pl/poznaj-zespol-demagoga/

Russian: https://demagog.org.pl/ru/nasa-komanda/

Ukrainian: https://demagog.org.pl/uk/nasa-komanda/

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/04/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Needs more info

Date: 17/03/2023

The Guide for EFCSN assessors states that this section of the application requires answers to questions as follows:

How is decision making supervised within the operation/parent organization?
Is there a board of trustees?
Are decisions made by the shareholders?
Are there specific committees in charge of taking specific decisions?

The provided link shows the Demagog team but does not address decision-making in the organization.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/05/2023

Decision-making process is regulated in the Association statute: https://demagog.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Statut-Stowarzyszenia-Demagog.pdf
We can provide additional clarification in the bios of members of the Board of Association, if that’s necessary.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

I'm marking this as Compliant.

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: 20/02/2023

We don't publish sponsored content.

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/04/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 18/03/2023

I have not encountered any information that would lead me to think that Demagog has published sponsored content.

Katarzyna Bąkowicz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 04/04/2023

Everything is ok in this field.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 18/03/2023

I have not encountered any information that would lead me to think that Demagog has published sponsored content.

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.