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

dpa Fact-Checking

Website

https://www.dpa.com/de/unternehmen/faktencheck#faktencheck-bei-dpa

Date

27/07/2023

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

In 2013, dpa started to publish its first regular fact checks on their news wire. Back then, dpa mainly checked if claims made by of politicians in pre-election campaigns were correct. In 2017, Stefan Voss took on the newly created position of a Verification Officer at dpa (https://web.archive.org/web/20170510153319/https://www.presseportal.de/pm/8218/3632410). With a team of highly motivated colleagues, he developed standards for fact-checks at dpa and helped editorial teams to introduce and get more used to the format. In 2019, dpa became an IFCN signatory.

As Germany's biggest news agency, dpa has been committed to facts and truthful reporting ever since it's founding in 1949. Fact checking in the sense of claim checking has been part of dpa's reporting for decades. However, a format called "Faktencheck" that strictly focuses on certain claims and our assessment without storytelling or feature components was new to the agency in 2013. It felt important and useful in a time where people got used to shorter texts and disinformation was spreading faster than ever on growing social networks.

dpa Fact-Checking started in German. In 2020, we started to publish in French and Dutch as well.
Please find here dpa's fact-checks for Germany, Switzerland (German/French), Austria, Belgium (Dutch/French), The Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/05/2023

DPA's fact-checking operation began 10 years ago. Their archive demonstrates a continuous flow of fact checks for the last three years (up to 3-5 per work day). It looks like more fact checks are published for Germany than for Switzerland.
The organization justifies the need for their fact-checking operation with reference to the spread of disinformation, especially on social media.

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: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-regeln
and
https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faqs

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#factcheck-regels
and
https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#vragen

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 01/05/2023

See the comment below:

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 10/05/2023

It is not clearly described at the links above where and how DPA finds claims to fact check. It's unclear at what places dpa looks for possible claims. Dpa does explain that there are always two people looking at a claim 'het vier-ogen-principe' and that they do choose what to fact check based on it's relevance for society

Not in the links provided by dpa at this standard, but at the bottom of most fact check articles in Dutch is described that the claim had been checked as part of the Third Party Fact Checking Program of Facebook. Does DPA in Dutch only check claims as part of this program?

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 03/07/2023

Thank you for your remarks!

About the question at the end: The dpa Fact-Checking team in general produces fact-checks for the general newswire of dpa as well as for the European Newsroom (ENR) and the Third Party Fact Checking Program of Facebook. Most articles are a team effort and the colleagues work together across countries on a daily basis. When it comes to fact check articles in Dutch published on https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/, they are currently indeed all part of the Meta program, as dpa has no wire in Dutch. The research by our colleagues in the Netherlands may also enrich texts that dpa published on its wires and help to debunk false claims on TikTok.

Based on your remark, I suggest adding the following paragraph to our website (also in Dutch as part of the answer to "Hoe komt een factcheck journalistiek tot stand, oftewel: hoe doet het team onderzoek?"):

"Das Faktencheck-Team entscheidet selbstständig, welche Behauptungen es überprüft. Oft sind das Themen, die in sozialen Netzwerken hochkochen oder in den Medien eine Rolle spielen, etwa Aussagen von Politikern. Über WhatsApp und E-Mail kann man uns Themen und Behauptungen direkt vorschlagen. Wir monitoren aber auch selbst die sozialen Netzwerke und beteiligen uns an den Faktencheck-Programmen von Meta und TikTok. Wir checken Behauptungen, die wir als gesellschaftlich relevant oder potenziell gefährlich bewerten."

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 24/05/2023

As per DPA's request, I only considered the information from March 8 till the end of May 2023. Do let me know if this is deemed unacceptable by the EFCSN and whether there is something else I need to consider.

Selection process: They focus on claims that argue to be factual, not on statements of opinion. They declare financial and ideological / political independence, and essentially state that no topic is off-limits due to financial or ideological constraints. Out of concern that a different strategy might draw more attention to misinformation, they focus on claims that have achieved some level of notoriety (at least at the federal level).

Research process: This is clearly described here (https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faqs, question 3), seems plausible. Upon having read some of their fact checks, I believe the DPA's claims were accurate.

Rating systems: While they do have a system in place, with their verdict ranging from "correct" to "false," these verdicts are not always voiced - with reference to some issues' complexity.

Clarity and accesibility: The information on these matters seemed clear and accessible to an average reader.

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 01/05/2023

It is clearly described in the methodology that DPA does not have an ideology and applies the same standards regardless of who made the claim.

A clear example of this can be found in these two articles: https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/230213-99-577357 and https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/230306-99-851647/

Both claims come from different parts of the political spectrum, but the same standards are upheld here.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/05/2023

To assess the merits of the evidence found using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim, I proceeded as follows. First, I looked to see whether the practice was noted in DPA’s methodology. This was the case.

Then, I went through the fact check archive and selected a couple of those dealing with all major political parties in Germany for a close examination. This allowed me to assess if different claims and evidence are treated in the same way, thus if the DPA is using the same standards regardless of who made the original claim, or what

side of the political spectrum it falls on.

To illustrate, here’s one example: Words put in the mouths of far-right (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/200929-99-755740/), conservative (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210928-99-392892/), liberal (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/220823-99-487225/), green (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210520-99-683022/) and left-wing politicians (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/230123-99-325554/; https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210331-99-42981/) were picked up and debunked in much the same way.

However, I did feel that more space was dedicated to clearly debunking the claim put in the mouth of the green politician than that of the rest (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210520-99-683022/). I suppose this was due to the link to Germany’s Nazi past. However, the Nazi past was also referenced in the claim attributed to the conservative politician (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210928-99-392892/). It is probably fine, but I wanted to draw this to your attention.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 03/07/2023

Thank you for your remarks! I have compared the two fact checks you draw out attention to (Özdemir and Rüddel). In this case I can't see differences regarding space or effort except that explaning the claim about Özdemir needed a bit more context in the first paragraph. But indeed, the length and also the number of arguments listed in our fact checks can vary, depending on what we deem necessary and useful. Sometimes a very strong, short argument can be more effective than a long one. Please let me know if you want to know more about this.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

The dpa fact-checking team decides independently what claims are being fact-checked. Focusing on relevant and potentially harmful topics, e.g. climate, health, migration, discrimination, but also braking news (like the recent earthquake in Turkey and Syria) is part of our self-understanding and also corresponds to the requirements of an international, independent news agency. In morning conferences, both teams (Germany/Austria/Switzerland and Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg) discuss potential claims. At least two people are involved in the selection of claims that are checked.

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 01/05/2023

Most fact-checks consider claims that are relevant for society, as they are politically relevant or focused on subjects like health. It is not always clear why something was checked in terms of scale. I found one article that (as far as the reader could see) was only shared 16 times on Facebook. Therefore it is important to clarify the process in which factchecks are selected, as mentioned at 2.A.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 25/05/2023

I reviewed fact checks on a variety of topics and can confirm that the DPA focuses primarily on issues of public relevance, incl. health, education, politics, and so on. Health is more represented than other topics, but this was to be expected during a pandemic. So is the war in the Ukraine – but again, this was to be expected. Fact checks concerning Hollywood stars and other softer topics are also present, but they are not predominant.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#kontakt

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#contact

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 01/05/2023

How readers can submit a possible claim and what is expected of readers is clearly explained at the page where the methodology can be found. This 'about' page can be easily found on the fact-checking pages of DPA.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/05/2023

Perhaps this is due to the renewing process of the website, but I don't think so.

While this information is definetely available under https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#kontakt, I think it should also be included here (https://www.dpa.com/de/kontakt). That's the URL I got when clicking on "Kontakt" at the top after reading a fact check --> About Us --> Kontakt. That's probably the way regular users would also try to contact the DPA.

Another thing to consider: The information appears underneath the FAQs, in a different layout (https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faqs). I suggest including it as a response to a FAQ in the FAQs themselves.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/05/2023

Perhaps this should also be merged with the information above: https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck-whatsapp#whatsapp-faktencheck

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2023

Thank you! I have asked to add the fact-checking team to the page https://www.dpa.com/de/kontakt as I agree it should be listed there. We will also add the contact address to the FAQ and add the WhatsApp way of proposing claims to check to the concat information. This all makes total sense.

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/05/2023

Dpa explains in the methodology that it tries to be as transparant as possible. It is not explicitly stated that dpa provides evidence for every factual statement in a claim, but the fact check articles that I have examined do prove that dpa provides evidence for every factual statement in the article and therefore adheres to this standard.

A good example of adherance is the following article on a AI generated image of Julian Assange: https://dpa-factchecking.com/belgium/230404-99-207489/

In the article a lot of factual background information is provided, and every factual statement has a source the reader can check by clicking on the hyperlink used, as has been done in this paragraph:

Julian Assange is de oprichter van Wikileaks, een online platform dat naar eigen zeggen geheime documenten en beelden "over oorlog, spionage en corruptie" openbaar maakt. Assange verwierf internationale bekendheid toen Wikileaks in 2010 beelden vrijgaf van Amerikaanse soldaten die achttien burgers doodschoten vanuit een helikopter in Irak.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/05/2023

I’m not sure whether the information included in the applicant’s methodology suffices (https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-regeln).

They state this:

“Das heißt zum Beispiel, dass alle in den Texten verwendeten öffentlichen Informationen verlinkt werden. Es ist das Ziel unserer Faktenchecks, dass die Leserinnen und Leser mit Hilfe der Links den Faktencheck nach Möglichkeit selbst vornehmen und sich eine eigene, auf Fakten gestützte Meinung bilden können.”
In English, my translation: “This means, for example, that all public information used in the texts is aceessible through hyperlinks. It is the aim of our fact checks that the readers can use the links to carry out the fact check themselves and form their own fact-based opinion.”

But this doesn’t refer precisely to sourcing practices.

However, upon having checked a random sample of fact-checks, I can confirm that the conclusions of fact-checks are backed up by sources and that factual statements are clearly sourced.

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/05/2023

It is clearly described in dpa's methodology that whenever possible dpa will use at least two independent sources to verify a claim and that sources must be primary sources. In all fact-check articles I have seen of dpa two independent sources were used to verify the claim.

Dpa does use mostly primary sources, but not always. An example of the use of secondary sources was the following article on extreme weather in Spain: https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/230503-99-544862/. In this article there are multiple sources and not all are primary. There are multiple local news broadcasters used as sources instead of a meteorological institute, which would be the primary source in this case.

Because the standard is mostly upheld, I have chosen for compliant, but the use of secondary sources might be explained more clearly in the methodology.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/05/2023

Yes, these practices are outlined in the applicant’s methodology (https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faqs). But I initially looked for this information here (https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-regeln). Perhaps the information split between these two links should be merged.

Several fact checks I read relied on one or just very few sources for their verdict. It does seem like these were the only (relevant) sources available (e.g., https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/230523-99-797067/) But most fact checks used a high number of sources, considerably more than two. I cannot tell whether secondary sources were used when no primary sources existed, that’s hard for somebody outside the newsroom to assess. I have not encountered a fact check where a secondary source was presented as such, perhaps the DPA should be asked for some specific examples to assess these:

“Where suitable primary sources are not available, the applicant explains the use of a secondary source.”
"In cases where only secondary sources are available to sustain the conclusion of a fact-check, the reason behind this should be explained."

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2023

Thank you for this feedback. Our editorial standards - including using at least two, preferably more sources to make our case and using primary sources whereever possible - are part of all our trainings and the team is reminded regularly. We will make use of this occation to stress this once again.

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/05/2023

It is clearly stated in dpa's methodology that it will not publish a factcheck solely based on anonymous sources. In the sample of fact-checks I've read most sources are publicly available web pages. I have not found any use of anonymous sources. Dpa does leave spokespersons unnamed in multiple articles, for example this one: https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/230307-99-864766/

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 25/05/2023

I couldn’t find any indication that this policy is outlined in the applicant’s methodology.

I conducted a Google Advanced search using these queries:

- anonym site:https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/

- “nicht erwähnt” site:https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/

None of the fact checks identified through this strategy (29 in total) used anonymous sources. I’m left to believe that the DPA does not use anonymous sources. They state on the website that they don't publish fact checks for which all they have is anonymous sources. But that is not the same as anonymizing sources. Please clarify.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2023

We do not use anonymous sources because every reader is supposed to be able to retrace every one of our research steps. In our FAQ, this is outlined:

"Unser Ziel ist es, die Faktenchecks so transparent wie möglich zu formulieren, damit die Leserinnen und Leser die Möglichkeit haben, die Bewertung nachvollziehen zu können. Deswegen sind sämtliche im Internet zugänglichen Quellen verlinkt. In aller Regel sorgen Archivlinks dafür, dass die Quellen auch einsehbar bleiben, wenn ganze Websites oder bestimmte Inhalte auf Seiten gelöscht werden. Wenn uns zum Beispiel Experten, Sprecherinnen oder Politiker direkt etwas mitteilen, so dass wir die Aussagen nicht verlinken können, nennen wir sie als Quellen explizit. Ein Faktencheck nur auf Basis anonymer Quellen ist bei dpa ausgeschlossen."

We do not anonymize sources because we wouldn't use their statement, as it can't be checked by our readers.

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: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-regeln
and
https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#redaktionelle-grundsaetze

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#factcheck-regels
and
https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#structuur

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/05/2023

For dpa poltical independence seems a core principle, which is reflected in the publicly available fact-checking policies. Dpa might describe a bit more extensively about how they make sure that their partnerships with tech companies do not influence fact-checks, but this is the only note of concern I found on this subject.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 27/05/2023

I am under the impression that the fact-checking operation demonstrates editorial and political independence. But do want to see more information on the cooperation with Meta and the way conflicts of interest are dealt with.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2023

It makes sense to at a Q&A about this to our FAQs, thank you for the suggestion!

I propose the following:

dpa kooperiert mit Plattformen und setzt Förderprojekte um - was bedeutet das für die Unabhängigkeit?

Die redaktionelle Unabhängigkeit ist für dpa insgesamt wie auch für den dpa-Faktencheck extrem wichtig. Weder unsere Kooperationspartner noch die Geldgeber für Förderprojekte bestimmen über unsere Inhalte, etwa die Auswahl der geprüften Behauptungen oder die Ergebnisse der Prüfung. Nur so kann Journalismus glaubwürdig sein. Zudem setzen wir auf Transparenz und kennzeichnen etwa, wenn ein Faktencheck im Rahmen der Kooperation mit Meta entstanden ist. Auch im Basisdienst werden die Kunden auf Kooperationen hingewiesen, wenn dpa über Partner berichtet.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#redaktionelle-grundsaetze

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#structuur

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 05/05/2023

Dpa clearly states that it does not form partnerships with parties that could harm their independence: "Wij geven geen politieke kiesadviezen en gaan geen relaties aan met politieke of andere organisaties die onze onafhankelijkheid in gevaar zouden kunnen brengen." I found no evidence that dpa has does not adhere tot this standard.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

I checked the disclosed partnerships covered in the transparency standards in Article 4. The only agreement that may raise some eyebrows is the partnership with Meta (Facebook and WhatsApp). From what I see on their website, it’s hard for me to evaluate whether concerns in this area are justified. I couldn’t find any credible evidence for a violation of this standard. I asked for more information on the partnership with Meta below.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faqs

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#vragen

Examples in German: https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/221209-99-839576/
oder https://www.dpa-news.de/mediaobject.jsf?moid=74632088&nh=dle04t.2

Example in Dutch: https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/220909-99-695812/
of https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/230203-99-463541/

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/05/2023

This policy is outlined on dpa's public methodology page. The example provided is indeed prove of adherence to this policy. The possible interests of the probable source of the video in the article are clearly stated.

I did find one article in which the reasonable conflict of interest was described rather limited, it is this article on Facebook (meta): https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/220621-99-744649/. Dpa discloses only at the very bottom of the article that they do have a partnership with Facebook. Overall dpa does comply with this principle, therefore I evaluate this standard as compliant.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 27/05/2023

The link to policy (the FAQs) does not include any information on how conflicts of interest are approach. Perhaps this information was included in a different part of the website? Please send along a new link.

The first example provided is not exactly controversial, in my view – the disclaimer concerns mecom Medien-Communikations-Gesellschaft mbH, not a household name. The second link provided is not accessible without logging in (https://www.dpa-news.de/b2b/login_deeplink.jsf). Please send a PDF or an accessible link.
Given the optics of the cooperation with Meta, I would like to see at least one fact check focused on Facebook or WhatsApp. I need to check “if an organisation is part of Meta’s third-party fact-checking program, this would need to be disclosed in any fact-check of a claim that is directly about Meta.”
Also, I would like to see an example of a fact check allowing me to assess this: “if an expert quoted on a political topic had previous employment with a political party or government, this would be important information to disclose when quoting them.”

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2023

We will add a question and answer about conflicts of interest and transparency in our Q&A (as suggested above, see 3.1.A

The fact-check not accessible without log in is this one: https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/220725-99-151134/, only that I sent the link to a slightly different version published on our newa wire - sorry for that.

We disclose in any fact-check published on our website www.dpa-factchecking.com our partnership with Meta, even if the article doesn't even mention Meta or WhatsApp. Articles sent via our newswire include a disclaimer mentioning the collaboration. It reads as follows:

«Die dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH und Tochtergesellschaften arbeiten seit Anfang 2019 mit Facebook im Bereich Faktencheck zusammen. Diese Zusammenarbeit ist Teil der Kooperationen von Facebook mit internationalen Faktencheck-Organisationen, die vom unabhängigen International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) zertifiziert wurden.»

(engl.: "dpa Deutsche Presse-Agentur GmbH and affiliates have been working with Facebook on fact checking since the beginning of 2019. This collaboration is part of Facebook's collaborations with international fact-checking organizations certified by the independent International Fact Checking Network (IFCN).")

An example can be viewed here: https://www.channelpartner.de/a/meinungsfreiheit-hat-grenzen,3678099

For the expert previously employed with a political party or government, we haven't found an example within our fact-checks, I will again try to find one.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/07/2023

We tried to find a fact checking article that quotes a former politician as an expert, but couldn't find one in our archive. We only quotet politicians as witnesses for themselves (https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/221220-99-973213/ or https://dpa-factchecking.com/netherlands/220105-99-597215/)

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-team

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#factcheckingteam

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/05/2023

See the comment below

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/05/2023

Dpa does state in it's public methodology that employees are not allowed to make political statements in the name of the organisation. But, there is no mention of a procedure in place to take action if employees do make politcal statements in the name of the organisation. Are their such procedures in place at dpa?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 04/07/2023

Thanks for the question! There is no written down procedure for this special case. Like in any other case of an employee violating dpa's rules and internal standards, measures have to be appropriate and in accordance with our works council. The first step is alsways the superior reminding the employee of the standards. So far no case whithin our operation had to be escalated further than that.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

This is stipulated on the website.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/05/2023

See the comment below

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/05/2023

Dpa does state in it's public methodology that employees are not allowed to accept professional gifts. But, there is no mention of a procedure in place to take action if employees do accept gifts that are not allowed. Are their such procedures in place at dpa?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/07/2023

See previous comment - in the event of a violation of applicable regulations, we take the legal steps appropriate in each individual case.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

This is stipulated on the website.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-regeln
https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#redaktionelle-grundsaetze
https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faqs
https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#faktencheck-team

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#factcheck-regels
https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#structuur
https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#vragen
https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#factcheckingteam

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/05/2023

Overall dpa does comply with this principle. In some cases the non partisanship policies are described very briefly, especially (3.1.G).

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

It looks like the applicant has complied with this standard. Here is a summary of their non-partisanship policies, my translation:

- strictly non-partisan
- not tied to any denomination or ideology
- economically independent
- impartial
- independent of the influence of political parties, ideological groups, economic or financial groups and governments

"Our employees are not permitted to hold paid or prominent positions in political parties, governments, state institutions and state-controlled companies. They should not take political sides in the name of the dpa fact check and may not accept any gifts, services or other benefits that go beyond normal social customs."

“We also use this premise to select the topics for our fact checks. For us, no social or political attitude is decisive, but solely the spirit of the Basic Law. We do not make electoral recommendations or form affiliations with political or other organizations that threaten our independence.” & “The trigger for a fact check is not a source's political orientation or party affiliation. … [T]he fact checks are not directed against a specific party or political orientation. What matters is the assertion itself and its social impact. Accordingly, there is no proportional distribution of the fact checks according to the party affiliation of the source. It may well be that politicians and parties who repeatedly draw attention to themselves by making false or misleading claims are subject to more frequent scrutiny.”

Since this information is provided in so many places on the website, I suggest consolidating it in one place, perhaps as its own FAQ.

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: 11/01/2023

dpa Fact-checking in all languages only uses pictures that have been provided to dpa's media clients by the dpa photo desk. dpa in all publications (in any language and country) strictly obeys the German Pressekondex that contains extensive rules regarding privacy protection (section 8): https://www.presserat.de/pressekodex.html

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 06/05/2023

See the comment below:

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 10/05/2023

Dpa does comply with this standard. The explanation is a bit brief on the issue of linking. Dpa does often link to posts of individual social media users and dpa does also link to Facebook posts in which pictures of recognizable individuals are shared. What is you policy on linking and safety and privacy? A person might post something for his friends, but when this post is shared on a large medium as dpa this might have consequences for this persons safety. Do you take this into account?

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 06/07/2023

We have to find a balance between different interests that are both important: protection of individuals and documenting our research in order to make it transparent and accountable. We also have to document the claim in a legally secure way in order to be able to proof that it was actually there. As far as I know, there are no clear guidelines from the IFCSN (or IFCN) yet on how to handle this. Naturally we only link to posts that are accessible by the public. We are aware that this might call attention to accounts that don't get many views.

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: 11/01/2023

dpa employees can contact the organisation TÜV Nord to get help fast in case of work-related psychological distress. Addtionally, we address the risk of trauma and harassment in our team conferences and in jour fixes between the fact-checking team and our editor-in-chief, Sven Gösmann.

Applicant

Date: 16/01/2023

Download File

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 07/05/2023

To be compliant on this standard dpa must describe or attach documentation on the following sort of policies:

How to handle cases of harassment, including who employees should report cases to inside your organisation and how such harassment will be documented and dealt with.
How staff can manage viewing graphic materials for fact-checking, and where employees can turn to if they face related psychological stress.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/07/2023

Harassment inside the organisation can be reported to our works council, where cases will be documentet and support offered. There is no document I can attach that ducuments the internal processes. Staff who face work-related psychological stress can turn to the organisation TÜV Nord to get help quickly and, if desired, anonymously.

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: 11/01/2023

An example has not occurred yet.

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 07/05/2023

See the comment below

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 10/05/2023

Even if no error of this kind has occurred, the standard still asks you to have a policy in place in case it should happen. Dpa does outline that is has this kind of policy for 'customers', but nowhere in the public methodology becomes clear how the correction note would be disseminated to common readers as well.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 06/07/2023

The phrase you are mentioning has to do with dpa's status as a news wire and B2B operation. Our media clients decide whether they want to publish our texts and make them available to readers. In cases of substantial mistakes occuring in fact check articles we publish on www.dpa-factchecking.com, we would include the required information in the correction note. I suggest expanding the paragraph as follows:

D: Jeder Fehler wird daher bei Bekanntwerden umgehend, ehrlich und so transparent wie möglich berichtigt. Das bedeutet, dass im Einzelnen angegeben werden muss, was falsch berichtet wurde und wie die Änderung konkret aussieht, oder ob neue Informationen hinzugekommen sind. NEU: Im Fall einer substanziellen Änderung oder Neubewertung wird auch erklärt, wie es zu dem Fehler gekommen ist.

E: Any error is therefore corrected promptly, honestly and as transparently as possible when it becomes known. This means that it must be stated in detail what was incorrectly reported and what the change specifically is, or whether new information has been added. NEW: In the case of a substantial change or reassessment, it is also explained how the error occurred.

NL: Wanneer een fout wordt ontdekt, wordt deze daarom onmiddellijk, integer en zo transparant mogelijk verbeterd. Dit betekent dat in detail moet worden aangegeven wat de fout precies was en wat de wijziging concreet inhoudt, of dat er nieuwe informatie aan de check is toegevoegd. NIEUW: In het geval van een substantiële wijziging of herbeoordeling wordt ook uitgelegd hoe de fout is ontstaan.

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:

Proof of registration/legal status:

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

No proof has been shared, only a web link to the legal information like organisation name and VAT-number has been shared.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

This documentation is publicly available.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 06/07/2023

Proof of ownership:

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

No proof has been shared, only a web link to the structure of the ownership has been shared.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 06/07/2023

An extract from the commercial register is publicly available on https://www.handelsregister.de/rp_web/welcome.xhtml - it can be downloaded for free. I don't think I can upload a document in this comment section.
The Gesellschaftsvertrag can be found here: http://docs.dpaq.de/15788-gesellschaftervertrag.pdf

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

This documentation is publicly available.

Proof of governance structure:

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

No proof has been shared, only a web link to the governance structure has been shared.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 06/07/2023

The governance strucure is extensively explained in dpa's Gesellschaftsvertrag, our bylaws. You can find the document here: http://docs.dpaq.de/15788-gesellschaftervertrag.pdf

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 27/05/2023

This documentation is publicly available.

Applicant

Date: 11/01/2023

German:

https://www.dpa.com/de/faktencheck#redaktionelle-grundsaetze

additionally, not specificly about fact-checks:
https://www.dpa.com/de/unternehmen/faq

Dutch:

https://dpa-factchecking.com/about/netherlands/#structuur

PLEASE NOTE:
dpa is in the process of renewing its entire website (www.dpa.com). This also affects the fact checking team. The links mentioned above will only contain all the required information from March 8 onwards. We kindly ask our reviewers to evaluate the content of the website only from March 8. Thank you very much!

Shannon Bakker (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/05/2023

This is briefly explaned in the link provided above: De journalisten van dpa zijn in hun berichtgeving vrij en onafhankelijk.
In paragraaf 5, lid 2 van de dpa-partnerschapovereenkomst staat letterlijk: “Het bedrijf vervult zijn taak onpartijdig en onafhankelijk van invloed en inmenging van partijen, ideologische groeperingen, economische of financiële groepen en regeringen”.
Any link to a larger statute is missing.

Viorela Dan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 27/05/2023

Do these "Grundsätze" (principles) truly bylaws to which the DPA has to obey to?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 06/07/2023

Our bylaws in a legal sense are written down in our Gesellschaftsvertrag, it can be viewed here: http://docs.dpaq.de/15788-gesellschaftervertrag.pdf, saying:
"Gegenstand des Unternehmens ist die Sammlung, Verarbeitung und Verteilung von Nachrichten, Archiv- und Bildmaterial jeder Art. Das Unternehmen erfüllt seine Aufgabe unparteiisch und unabhängig von Einwirkungen und Einflüssen durch Parteien, Weltanschauungsgruppen, Wirtschafts- oder Finanzgruppen und Regierungen."
(English: "The object of the company is the collection, processing and distribution of news, archive and image material of any kind. The company fulfills its task impartially and independently of influence and interference by political parties, ideological groups, economic or financial groups and governments.")

Our internal guidelines for staff are still binding, though. Violations will have consequences (see comments 3.1.G/3.1.H).

Article 4.2: Financial transparency and conflicts of interest

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

Best Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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