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
Factcheck.bg
Website
https://factcheck.bg/Date
18/01/2024
Please, answer the following questions:
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Factcheck.bg is the only platform in Bulgaria dedicated solely to fact-checking, an initiative of the Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria (AEJ).
The team of non-partisan professional journalists was created by AEJ-Bulgaria in May 2021 to counter the increasing pollution of Bulgaria’s information environment. The project’s objective is to check claims about topics of public interest with significant potential social impact according to the highest standards of professional journalism. To maximize impact, the project focuses on helping Bulgarian journalists differentiate facts from falsehoods on social media, traditional media, public statements by officials and other information sources. The articles on the site are also meant more broadly to inform Bulgarian citizens who are interested in news and public affairs and seeking answers to other questions of social significance.
The Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria (AEJ-Bulgaria) is a non-profit association, established in 2010. It is a member of the International Association of European Journalists (www.aej.org), which brings together journalists and independent national associations in over 20 European countries. As a professional association, AEJ establishes positions and lobbies publicly on issues of crucial importance to working journalists across Europe such as freedom of speech, access to information, information integrity and the physical safety of journalists. The association also offers its members the opportunity to participate in a larger national and international professional and social network. The association is an official Observer in the Council of Europe’s Media Steering Committee.
The team of non-partisan professional journalists was created by AEJ-Bulgaria in May 2021 to counter the increasing pollution of Bulgaria’s information environment. The project’s objective is to check claims about topics of public interest with significant potential social impact according to the highest standards of professional journalism. To maximize impact, the project focuses on helping Bulgarian journalists differentiate facts from falsehoods on social media, traditional media, public statements by officials and other information sources. The articles on the site are also meant more broadly to inform Bulgarian citizens who are interested in news and public affairs and seeking answers to other questions of social significance.
The Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria (AEJ-Bulgaria) is a non-profit association, established in 2010. It is a member of the International Association of European Journalists (www.aej.org), which brings together journalists and independent national associations in over 20 European countries. As a professional association, AEJ establishes positions and lobbies publicly on issues of crucial importance to working journalists across Europe such as freedom of speech, access to information, information integrity and the physical safety of journalists. The association also offers its members the opportunity to participate in a larger national and international professional and social network. The association is an official Observer in the Council of Europe’s Media Steering Committee.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 15/11/2023
Factcheck.bg is a distinct team within a legally registered nonprofit organization (Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria) which supports professional journalism. Factcheck.bg was set up in May 2021 for the purpose of fact-checking. Its main mission is not traditional journalism but countering disinformation (including targeted disinformation campaigns), spread via social media and occasionally - by politicians. It publishes reports on the factual accuracy of claims, statements and narratives related to public interest issues. Factcheck.bg clearly indicates on its website its status and its relation to AEJ-Bulgaria.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
The team consists of two editors, three permanent journalists, three free lance contributors, one data base expert, one social media manager and one project manager - in total 7 persons working permanently for Factcheck.bg and 3 free lance contributors.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 15/11/2023
According to the website of Factcheck.bg 11 people are contributing to the platform and 3 more people are managing the project (they work for AEJ-Bulgaria). From the editorial team three experts are mainly responsible for the content - one editor-in-chief, one deputy editor-in-chief and one audio-visual editor. Six journalists are contributing to the platform (either on full contract, or as freelancers) and there are two data experts.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Factcheck.bg team is regularly conducting training, seminars or taking part in conferences related to the disinformation trends. In 2023 the journalists participated in more than 10 seminars and conferences and conducted 6 training sessions in the capital and different regional cities for journalists, civil society activists and students.
In addition to the ongoing training, Factcheck.bg organized the first National fact-checking academy. Our fact-checking team trained 40 journalists and journalism students in Blagoevgrad (16-18 June) using the examples of debunked Russian disinformation campaigns and helped the regional journalists and students to better understand how the propaganda works.
Factcheck.bg created the most comprehensive guide on fact-checking in Bulgarian and English with actual cases of Russian propaganda -”Fact-Checking Guide 2023” (https://factcheck.bg/en/factcheck-bg-presents-fact-checking-guide-2023/ ). The guide was created in cooperation with Poynter institute and is used for the training Factcheck.bg conducts.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 15/11/2023
I confirm that Factcheck.bg really conducted all of the listed activities. In addition, there was a second edition of the National Fact-Checking Academy in October 2023, in the city of Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
The main goal of our organization related to Factcheck.bg is to guarantee its sustainability thus the regular publishing of factchecks. As a non-governmental organization, we are funded by projects and this creates risks to the sustainable functioning of our fact-checking operation. Therefore, the project management is actively engaged in seeking future funding opportunities that would allow us to develop both in terms of staff and content, while at the same time meet our standards for editorial independence. An important aspect of sustainable development is to keep the existing team that has already undergone a number of trainings and has solid experience, while adding new people to help with the increased workload. The third element of sustainability is increasing the recognition and authority of Factcheck.bg in the public sphere, both with regard to media organizations and the general public. In this regard, over the past year we have made significant progress, which is expressed in existing and planned partnerships with national and regional media, increased media interest in our work,and wider popularity on social media.
In the fall of 2023, local elections will be held in the country, but these may be combined with another early parliamentary election. Bulgaria has been in a tough political crisis for almost two years. The series of elections over the past two years demonstrated the widespread use of disinformation during political campaigns, leading to its popularization on social media and its unhindered penetration into traditional media. Thus we expect the forthcoming election campaign to enhance the spread of disinformation but in customized and localized versions of the big narratives that we have already debunked. Our fact-checking operation will be focused on the forthcoming elections and the attempts of some political actors to destabilize the political situation by spreading disinformation.
The war in Ukraine has been a topic in the first months of the war and due to some special cases such as Bucha killings, for example. Generally, the war creates a broader context of pressure and instability, where anti-EU, anti-NATO and anti-liberal Kremlin propaganda narratives thrive. The war in Ukraine turned out to be a key to changing the public debate – although not present as a specific topic of disinformation, it creates a destabilizing context that favors the spread of Russian propaganda. Thus the shadow of the war could be found in many issues seemingly unrelated to the war in Ukraine.
In the next year we will focus also on the disinformation related to the war in Ukraine, the EU membership, liberal values and human rights such as LGBT and women rights that are currently on the agenda of the populists parties and groups in the country.
In the fall of 2023, local elections will be held in the country, but these may be combined with another early parliamentary election. Bulgaria has been in a tough political crisis for almost two years. The series of elections over the past two years demonstrated the widespread use of disinformation during political campaigns, leading to its popularization on social media and its unhindered penetration into traditional media. Thus we expect the forthcoming election campaign to enhance the spread of disinformation but in customized and localized versions of the big narratives that we have already debunked. Our fact-checking operation will be focused on the forthcoming elections and the attempts of some political actors to destabilize the political situation by spreading disinformation.
The war in Ukraine has been a topic in the first months of the war and due to some special cases such as Bucha killings, for example. Generally, the war creates a broader context of pressure and instability, where anti-EU, anti-NATO and anti-liberal Kremlin propaganda narratives thrive. The war in Ukraine turned out to be a key to changing the public debate – although not present as a specific topic of disinformation, it creates a destabilizing context that favors the spread of Russian propaganda. Thus the shadow of the war could be found in many issues seemingly unrelated to the war in Ukraine.
In the next year we will focus also on the disinformation related to the war in Ukraine, the EU membership, liberal values and human rights such as LGBT and women rights that are currently on the agenda of the populists parties and groups in the country.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 15/11/2023
The focus of Factcheck.bg in 2024, as stated, will be predominantly fighting disinformation by producing in a sustainable manner fact-checking publications on selected topics such as countering anti-EU, anti-NATO and anti-democratic Kremlin propaganda narratives. A special focus will be the disinformation related to the war in Ukraine. The additional activities, mentioned above, are primarily in the educational domain and will not be the major focus of the platform, according to its statement.
Applicant
Date: 10/01/2025
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/11/2023
Accoding to the Chapter 5.2. – C The applicant must have a substantial and demonstrable focus on one (or more) of the countries of the Council of Europe, plus Kosovo or Belarus.
Factcheck.bg covers mainly the disinformation spread in Bulgaria. It is aimed at debunking misinformation in Bulgarian and mainly for Bulgarians. Factcheck.bg debunks mainly disinformation related to the war that is spread in Bulgaria such the Bulgarian state decisions, the aid for refugees, the refugees behavior in Bulgaria, the situation of Bulgarian citizens in Ukraine and others such topics.
Source: https://factcheck.bg/en/mission/
Source: https://factcheck.bg/en/mission/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 5.2.- С, first part.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 15/11/2023
I confirm that Factcheck.bg deals with countering disinformation in the Bulgarian public sphere or relevant to Bulgaria, which is an EU member state and a member state of the Council of Europe. The platform is based in Bulgaria and the authors and contributors are Bulgarian language native speakers. As far as I know, they are Bulgarian citizens and have in-depth knowledge about the state of affairs in the country.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Applicant
Date: 25/10/2023
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/11/2023
According to the Chapter 5.2. – D Applicants must provide evidence to demonstrate they have published an average of four original fact-checks per month consistently over the previous year.
The applicants are invited to attach an evidence – 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.
65 fact checks have been published in Bulgarian on the website of Factcheck.bg for 12 months (November 2022 – October 2023). They are published regularly.
The regularity is confirmed by the provided list of original factchecks in Bulgarian for the mentioned period (more than 5 factchecks monthly).
Sources:
2. Included list
Conclusion: FactCheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 5.2.- D.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 21/11/2023
The applicant meets the criteria.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
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.
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: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Transparency of Methodology
Transparency of Methodology
We examine both sides of every claim: evidence that appears to support the claim and evidence that refutes it.
We evaluate all evidence to the same high standards that we apply to all equivalent statements, regardless of the source of those statements.
We only verify claims which are presented as facts and can be shown to be true or false. We can not and do not try to verify opinions.
We prioritize the claims we check based on a combination of three factors: appearing dubious on the surface; having potential significant social impact because of the subject matter or the speaker's public position or influence; reaching a wide audience, based on the amount of engagements on social media or size of the television, radio or print media market.
When appropriate and necessary to verify a claim, we seek to contact the source and include their response to questions about their statement and evidence which counters their claim.
We evaluate all evidence to the same high standards that we apply to all equivalent statements, regardless of the source of those statements.
We only verify claims which are presented as facts and can be shown to be true or false. We can not and do not try to verify opinions.
We prioritize the claims we check based on a combination of three factors: appearing dubious on the surface; having potential significant social impact because of the subject matter or the speaker's public position or influence; reaching a wide audience, based on the amount of engagements on social media or size of the television, radio or print media market.
When appropriate and necessary to verify a claim, we seek to contact the source and include their response to questions about their statement and evidence which counters their claim.
How We Work on Selected Claims
All potential claims are first considered in editorial meetings. The discussion includes potential conflicts, best journalistic approaches to the issue and finding information and assigning a journalist to work on the topic. Sometimes additional research is needed before the decision is made about whether a claim should be assigned to a journalist as a fact check. The reporter discusses with the editor the sources, experts, visual materials and general structure of the article. Once the journalist completes the draft, other members of the team read and comment on the article, and suggest potential edits. The editor exercises final responsibility for the clarity and accuracy of the article before giving a green light for publication.
Transparency of Sources
Transparency of Sources
All information sources used to verify claims are clearly identified so that users can evaluate their credibility and carry out their own verifications if they wish. Anonymous sources are acceptable only when identifying the source would jeopardize his/her personal security.
Primary information sources are the most reliable and are always used whenever possible. Only when such sources are not available are secondary sources used.
This lack of availability will be duly explained.
We use reputable sources such as official statistics, scientific articles published in reputable journals, papers by prominent think tanks and other NGOs, academia and experts with reputations for excellence and neutrality. We also consult books, news reports and fact-checks published by other organizations.
Key elements of all claims are verified based on at least two reliable information sources, except in cases when only one such source is relevant.
If any sources cited have financial or other interests that may affect the accuracy or credibility of the evidence provided, such potential conflicts are disclosed so that readers themselves can assess the reliability of the information.
We always include links to source materials in our articles, preferably in Bulgarian whenever possible. We also archive screenshots of webpages, social media posts, TV shows, and other sources for potential future reference. We use graphs and charts in order to show data or interconnections. Whenever appropriate, our fact checks include explanations why a specific claim was checked or a description of our research process and why a certain source was selected, in order for the public to better understand fact-checking and learn to do it themselves.
We add more background reporting and context when fact-checking a topic unfamiliar to the Bulgarian public.
Primary information sources are the most reliable and are always used whenever possible. Only when such sources are not available are secondary sources used.
This lack of availability will be duly explained.
We use reputable sources such as official statistics, scientific articles published in reputable journals, papers by prominent think tanks and other NGOs, academia and experts with reputations for excellence and neutrality. We also consult books, news reports and fact-checks published by other organizations.
Key elements of all claims are verified based on at least two reliable information sources, except in cases when only one such source is relevant.
If any sources cited have financial or other interests that may affect the accuracy or credibility of the evidence provided, such potential conflicts are disclosed so that readers themselves can assess the reliability of the information.
We always include links to source materials in our articles, preferably in Bulgarian whenever possible. We also archive screenshots of webpages, social media posts, TV shows, and other sources for potential future reference. We use graphs and charts in order to show data or interconnections. Whenever appropriate, our fact checks include explanations why a specific claim was checked or a description of our research process and why a certain source was selected, in order for the public to better understand fact-checking and learn to do it themselves.
We add more background reporting and context when fact-checking a topic unfamiliar to the Bulgarian public.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/11/2023
Art. 2.A. requires the explanation of the fact-checking process to be available and easily accessible on the website of the operation.
This requirement is properly fulfilled, the detailed explanation titled "work principles" is available and easily accessible via main menu on the website.
This requirement is properly fulfilled, the detailed explanation titled "work principles" is available and easily accessible via main menu on the website.
Source: https://factcheck.bg/work-principles /
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in Art. 2A.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 21/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has published on its website a comprehensive statement about the methodology it uses to select, research, write and publish its fact-checks. It is easily accessible. The platform explains in details the values, standards, the methodology and the process of fact-checking. There is an explanation of the rating system used.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art. 2 B requires using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.
This principle is announced as a part of methodology: "We evaluate evidence to the same high standards that we apply to equivalent claims, regardless of the source of those claims. " [1]
For example, the equal application of the principles can be shown in the assessment of the facts regarding two political parties – "Продължаваме промяната" (ПП), currently part of the governing coalition, and "Възраждане", currently part of the opposition.
This principle is announced as a part of methodology: "We evaluate evidence to the same high standards that we apply to equivalent claims, regardless of the source of those claims. " [1]
For example, the equal application of the principles can be shown in the assessment of the facts regarding two political parties – "Продължаваме промяната" (ПП), currently part of the governing coalition, and "Възраждане", currently part of the opposition.
In the Politicheck column, two articles have been published: one of them revealing the falsehood of a statement by an MP from ПП- "Inflation in Bulgaria is the lowest in Europe" [2] and another article, revealing the falsehood of accusations against ПП - "Has the Cabinet got national debt as much as 20 other governments?” [3]
A similar impartial application of the standards could be found in relation to the opposition party Възраждане: it is shown in favor of Възраждане that " arrested for espionage in London are not from Възраждане" [4], but at the same time the unreliability of the statements of the leader of Възраждане Kostadinov is revealed - "There is no forced change of the names of the Bulgarians in Ukraine, as claimed by Kostadin Kostadinov"[5].
[4] https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-da-arestuvanite-za-shpionazh-v-london-ne-sa-predlozheni-ot-vazrazhdane-v-izborni-sekcii-prez-2021-g/ Арестуваните за шпионаж в Лондон не са предложени от Възраждане
[5] PolitiCheck: Няма насилствена смяна на имената на българите в Украйна, както твърди Костадин Костадинов
[5] PolitiCheck: Няма насилствена смяна на имената на българите в Украйна, както твърди Костадин Костадинов
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in Art. 2B.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 21/11/2023
The applicant clearly indicates in its methodology that it aims to assess the merits of the evidence found using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim. The evidence suggests that Factcheck.bg does apply the same high standards regardless of who made the claim. No partisan language or a pattern of making assumptions (without evidence) has been detected. On the other hand, in the series of "PolitiCheck", which fact-checks claims of Bulgarian politicians, the selected politicians (in a sample of several months) are predominantly from one of the middle-sized political parties in the parliament - "Vazrazhdane". It is a prorussian party, producing a lot of disinformation and anti-democratic claims. This probably explains why politicians of 'Vazrazhdane' are more often subjects of fact-checking in comparative context. However, the content of the fact-checking articles indicates that the team of Factcheck.bg follows the same high standards of using sources and processing information regardless of who made the claim.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
The very creation of Factcheck.bg in May 2021 was motivated by the massive disinformation wave spreading in Bulgaria about the Covid-19 pandemic and Covid-19 vaccines. This was also the topic we covered most often until the start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022. According to a report by the European Parliament, the creation of Factcheck.bg was a “key measure against COVID-19 disinformation practices in Bulgaria”. Undoubtedly, these two topics are of the highest social importance, and this determined their leading place in our work. At the same time, it is striking that in Bulgaria the topic of the war in Ukraine often completely disappears from public debates, and if it appears, it is in a very local political or party context. It should be noted that Bulgaria has been in a political crisis for almost two years, went through a series of early elections and was governed mostly by caretaker governments. In order to respond to this situation, we created the "PolitiCheck" section, where we only check claims made by politicians. We constantly debunk anti-EU and anti-NATO narratives, widely present in Bulgarian public space for years). Another field we work on is misinformation on scientific topics, ranging from 5G and microwave ovens to the coffee capsules and HAARP conspiracy. We apply a horizontal approach allowing us to link seemingly separate and insignificant (but viral) examples of misinformation to broader narratives, and to use them as illustration of how disinformation and propaganda work. In addition, we regularly publish in-depth analysis showing interlinks, actors and dissemination channels of topical harmful narratives.
In general, we select the claims and information we check based on their popularity, their potential to bring harm to society, and the authority (popularity) of the source. We prioritize claims with high potential to harm people's lives and health, but at the same time we are careful not to give them undue significance and premature popularity. With the help of our data consultant, we monitor "toxic" groups on Facebook, which is the most popular social media in Bulgaria, in order to quickly react to disinformation that is gaining momentum. An important source of topics to work on is the signals of our readers. This gives us the opportunity to diversify the topics and get additional information about what interests people. We carefully review each signal and if we judge (according to the above criteria) we publish a factcheck. If we decide that the topic is not of public interest, we answer the reader what we have found and send him the necessary information.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art. 2 C requires fact-checks to be focused on topics that are in the public interest, defined here as issues that concern the welfare of society or individuals.
According to the written mission of Factcheck.bg: "The articles on the site also aim to inform Bulgarian citizens who are interested in news and public affairs, and who are looking for answers to other questions of public importance.” [1]
According to the written mission of Factcheck.bg: "The articles on the site also aim to inform Bulgarian citizens who are interested in news and public affairs, and who are looking for answers to other questions of public importance.” [1]
Central topics are Covid-19 pandemic and Covid-19 vaccines. More than 70 publications concern disinformation related to the pandemic, protection against it, the policy of Bulgaria and the EU on the issue. The disinformation has contributed significantly to the country having the lowest rate of inoculations in the EU [2]
Another central theme is the war in Ukraine and pro-Kremlin propaganda. More than 120 publications are devoted to this topic.
Ukrainian language information is also supported. [3]
Bulgaria has been in a political crisis for almost two years, went through a series of early elections and was governed mostly by caretaker governments. In order to respond to this situation, "PolitiCheck" section is created, where only claims made by politicians are checked. [4]
Almost all publications are related to a topic of public importance.
[2] The COVID-19 vaccination in Bulgaria
[4] Politicheck
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2C.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Needs more info
Date: 15/12/2023
Factcheck.bg has indicated clearly on its website that it selects claims to fact-check provided that: the claim refers to verifiable facts; it seems dubious; it could have serious social impact; it has reached comparatively large audience.
The applicant meets the criteria regarding the thematic diversity of the publications. The team covers a wide range of issues, from matters of health and safety to civic and political topics, human rights, the environment, energy, science, transportation and more.
However, I would like to add some remarks with regard to my view that selecting what to fact-check is a methodological issue of utmost importance. If selection of topics or speakers is distorted by being biased, unbalanced or one-sided, the accuracy of the sources and of the evaluation will not be enough to contribute for a fair fact-checking effort.
As stated by the applicant earlier in this application form, its major mission is “to counter the increasing pollution of Bulgaria’s information environment”. Actually, its focus is primarily on fighting disinformation and this is where the mission of Factcheck.bg differs from the one of traditional journalism, which has a broader spectrum of instruments for mediation of the public debate.
As far as the major disinformation in Bulgaria comes from Russian propaganda, Factcheck.bg often deals with debunking “anti-EU”, “anti-NATO“ and “anti-liberal“ Kremlin propaganda narratives, which come under the cover of everyday issues like closing the coal mines in the country, the vaccination against Covid-19, the climate change issues, adoption of the euro, etc. As far as fighting anti-democratic disinformation, anti-EU and anti-NATO narratives is not stated either as a selection criterion, or as a mission of the team, I would suggest that it is included and explained in the “Principles of Work/Transparency of the Methodology” and the “Mission” sections on the website.
Factcheck.bg has three major categories/sections of publications titled “The Facts for”, “Disinformation” and “We’ve checked”. “The Facts for” resembles traditional journalism with its diversity of the issues covered (health, telecommunications, foreign policy, etc.) and with the lack of final rating if something is clearly true or false. Its primary function is explanatory. At the same time, this section is clearly EU-centered, as far as it covers major issues on the EU agenda.
The “Disinformation” section deals primarily with debunking conspiracy theories. Although these conspiracies (flat Earth, big pharma, HAARP, 5G, etc.) could be considered as issues of public interest, it is disputable whether they are the most pressing issues of public interest on the current Bulgarian political and social agenda.
At the same time the “Disinformation” section occasionally makes investigations about targeted disinformation campaigns (mainly by Kremlin or other prorussian actors), thus filling a gap in the Bulgarian public sphere concerning the lack of a real and effective STRATCOM unit. This quasi-STRATCOM function of Factcheck.bg could also be indicated in the selection and/or mission statement of the team.
The “We’ve checked” section deals mostly with very particular cases of false information in the social media, including fake videos, pictures, maps, etc. This section also includes “PolitiCheck”.
Assessor
Needs more info
Date: 05/01/2024
It seems like the assessor mixes propaganda with disinformation. Although both notions have common features and often propaganda uses disinformation, they are by no means the same thing. The mission of Factcheck.bg is to debunk disinformation as it comes. According to the EEAS report on FIMI in 2023, Russia is the main foreign actor creating threads against the EU and its members. Given the context of the war in Ukraine, it is not a surprise that the main narratives are anti-liberal, anti-NATO and anti-EU. As the assessor notes, these mega-narratives are often hidden behind ‘innocent” topics like food quality or seemingly scientific topics like vaccination or climate. However, the nature of these predominant narratives is context-driven and closely associated with topical (geo)political events. That means that they could change in time, so we do not have to add them to our mission or methodology – our mission is to debunk topical disinformation, whatever it could be and whenever it comes from.
Assessor
Needs more info
Date: 05/01/2024
"The “Disinformation” section deals primarily with debunking conspiracy theories. Although these conspiracies (flat Earth, big pharma, HAARP, 5G, etc.) could be considered as issues of public interest, it is disputable whether they are the most pressing issues of public interest on the current Bulgarian political and social agenda. "
The topics mentioned by the assessor are part of our video series “Let me explain”, devoted to some of the most popular conspiracy theories. The project is part of our efforts to fight science misinformation, which is extremely popular in Bulgaria, especially on TikTok. According to our research, these topics are social media evergreens and resurge triggered by topical events, for example:
The topics mentioned by the assessor are part of our video series “Let me explain”, devoted to some of the most popular conspiracy theories. The project is part of our efforts to fight science misinformation, which is extremely popular in Bulgaria, especially on TikTok. According to our research, these topics are social media evergreens and resurge triggered by topical events, for example:
Secondly, explaining the basics of conspiracy theories and conspiratorial thinking is of utmost importance while dealing with topical political and social issues. For example, many false stories about the Covid-19 vaccines are based on old conspiracy theories. The same applies to Kremlin disinformation about the war in Ukraine. It is eloquent that Russia's officially stated goal to achieve a “New world order” is the same as the notorious conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are widely used by Kremlin propaganda, as explained in our articles and also here.
Thirdly, and most importantly, under the “Disinformation” section, we publish our narratives debunking and dissemination investigations. That means we explain how seemingly different parts of false or misleading information are used to construct a bigger narrative and how this narrative spreads in public space. Some examples:
Assessor
Needs more info
Date: 05/01/2024
"At the same time the “Disinformation” section occasionally makes investigations about targeted disinformation campaigns (mainly by Kremlin or other prorussian actors), thus filling a gap in the Bulgarian public sphere concerning the lack of a real and effective STRATCOM unit. This quasi-STRATCOM function of Factcheck.bg could also be indicated in the selection and/or mission statement of the team."
If we define strategic communication more broadly, it will be “the purposeful use of communication by an organisation to fulfil its mission”. In that sense, what we do is debunk disinformation, trying to use means and channels most appropriate to reach our target audiences. What the assessor implies sounds like we substitute a government STRATCOM division, which is by no means true. We do not have any relations to the government different from asking questions and requesting information, as any other journalists. Moreover, we do not try to set the agenda and do not create counter-narratives, as would be the task of a government STRATCOM unit.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/send/
https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to the Art.2D the operations 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 in claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.
Factcheck.bg provides available and easily accessible channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification on the website on site:
“ Encountered a claim you think needs to be checked?
Ask us. We carefully review all questions submitted by readers. If there is sufficient basis, we will perform a fact check. If not, we will respond with an email explaining why not. Please provide as much information as possible about the claim in the fields below.” [1]
The form is attached (in Bulgarian and in English).
Sources;
[1] https://factcheck.bg/send/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2D.
Factcheck.bg provides available and easily accessible channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification on the website on site:
“ Encountered a claim you think needs to be checked?
Ask us. We carefully review all questions submitted by readers. If there is sufficient basis, we will perform a fact check. If not, we will respond with an email explaining why not. Please provide as much information as possible about the claim in the fields below.” [1]
The form is attached (in Bulgarian and in English).
Sources;
[1] https://factcheck.bg/send/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2D.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 22/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has clearly indicated on its website that readers are welcome to submit claims for verification. There is a special link which makes the channel visible and easily accessible. The team has explained to the readers what are the two major conditions under which he or she could reasonably expect that the claim will be fact-checked: 1. the claim is dubious, and 2. it refers to verifiable facts. It is clearly indicated that opinions are not fact-checked. There is a special online form on the website for submitting proposals for verification.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art.2E requires the reader to have access to all information for a verification process.
The posts on the Factcheck.bg site are detailed and circumstantial. They present the analysts' reasoning step by step to the conclusion, which could be seen in a concise form in the title of publication.
This rule is explicitly envisaged in the methodology: "All information sources used to verify claims are clearly identified so that users can evaluate their credibility and carry out their own verifications if they wish." [1]
The subject of publications is, for example, digitally altered photos. A photo of two people presented as Ukrainian soldiers, wearing Nazi eagle patches on their uniforms, is circulating on social media. Factcheck.bg checked the image using the InVID/WeVerify tool. It showed that the picture is digitally altered – the patch depicting the Ukrainian flag was doctored and the Nazi eagle on the sleeve of the person on the right was copied and pasted from the uniform of the man. It is explained, that Kremlin propaganda regularly uses altered videos and images to portray Ukrainians as “Nazis”. The need to “denazify Ukraine” was one of the reasons Russia used to justify its February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Similar altered images, falsely portraying Ukrainians as Nazis, have been exposed by various media outlets and fact-checkers. It is explained exactly how the inspection is carried out and the tool for the detection of manipulated photos is applied. [2]
In this regard, training videos on working with tools for recognizing false information are published on the site. [3]
The disinformation channels in Bulgaria, including sites and groups on Facebook, are described in detail when possible. For example, the information that Ukraine is giving weapons to Hamas refers to pointed in the article groups and individuals from whom the spread in Bulgaria began. [4]
Sources:
[2] A digitally altered photo of two people presented Ukrainian soldiers as Nazis
https://factcheck.bg/manipulirana-snimka-predstavya-ukrainski-vojnici-kato-nacisti/
https://factcheck.bg/manipulirana-snimka-predstavya-ukrainski-vojnici-kato-nacisti/
[4] Who wants us to believe that Ukraine is giving weapons to Hamas?
https://factcheck.bg/koj-iska-da-vyarvame-che-ukrajna-dava-orazhiya-na-hamas/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2E.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2E.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 23/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has a track record of high quality sourcing. It makes judgments upon high quality primary sources. The use of secondary sources is rare - when primary sources are not available, and this is indicated in the publications. There is an in-depth explanation on the website about the use of sources (in the "Methodology" section). All fact-checks have links of all available online evidence used to reach the conclusion of the investigation, as well as screenshots, photographs, etc. It is easy for the reader to access all the evidence that led to the conclusion of the fact-check. In addition, there is a special section, titled “Sources”, under each article, where all of the sources used are linked. Factcheck.bg has a pattern to thoroughly inquire into the claims at stake by using multiple sources. Not a single fact-checking publication in the randomised sample used for this assessment includes only one relevant named source. The sources are always multiple and in most cases are indicated with relevant links.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art.2F requires
a) every factual statement to be justified, relying on primary sources where possible
and
b) relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it to be provided.
Firstly, factual statements in fact-checking are detailed and thoroughly substantiated. This applies especially to publications in the fields of Politics. For example ideological roots of disinformation and conspirative theories are discussed. The myth of Russia’s “divine” mission to preserve Christian civilization after the Western world’s turn to materialism, secularism, and individualism can be traced even before fascist philosophers rehabilitated by Vladimir Putin. [1]
a) every factual statement to be justified, relying on primary sources where possible
and
b) relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it to be provided.
Firstly, factual statements in fact-checking are detailed and thoroughly substantiated. This applies especially to publications in the fields of Politics. For example ideological roots of disinformation and conspirative theories are discussed. The myth of Russia’s “divine” mission to preserve Christian civilization after the Western world’s turn to materialism, secularism, and individualism can be traced even before fascist philosophers rehabilitated by Vladimir Putin. [1]
The rule is explicitly envisaged in the methodology: “Primary information sources are the most reliable and are always used whenever possible. Only when such sources are not available are secondary sources used. This lack of availability will be duly explained.” [2]
Secondly, Art. 2F requires considering relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.
Secondly, Art. 2F requires considering relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.
The rule is explicitly envisaged in the methodology: "We examine both sides of every claim: evidence that appears to support the claim and evidence that refutes it." [3]
This requirement is also respected, for example in the publication „PolitiCheck: It is not true that Germany's Constitutional Court has declared voting machines unreliable“ one could find arguments of political parties in support of machine voting and against it. [4]
This approach is consistently applied in all analyses.
Sources:
[1] Kremlin speaking: homophobia as geopolitics
https://factcheck.bg/en/kremlin-speaking-homophobia-as-geopolitics/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
[3] https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
[4] PolitiCheck: It is not true that Germany's Constitutional Court has declared voting machines unreliable https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-ne-e-vyarno-che-germanskiyat-konstitucionen-sad-e-obyavil-mashinite-za-glasuvane-za-nenadezhdni/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2F.
This approach is consistently applied in all analyses.
Sources:
[1] Kremlin speaking: homophobia as geopolitics
https://factcheck.bg/en/kremlin-speaking-homophobia-as-geopolitics/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
[3] https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
[4] PolitiCheck: It is not true that Germany's Constitutional Court has declared voting machines unreliable https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-ne-e-vyarno-che-germanskiyat-konstitucionen-sad-e-obyavil-mashinite-za-glasuvane-za-nenadezhdni/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2F.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 23/11/2023
Factcheck.bg relies mostly on primary sources when making its judgments. Whenever appropritate, it uses other factual statements in articles, expert statements, etc. As to the requirement for providing relevant evidence that appears not only to support but also to undermine the claim, it is almost always used as an approach. When debunking disinformation and false claims, the authors usually first delve into the initial evidence which they later disprove. This approach could be improved in articles covering claims on issues which divide the society and where there is high polarization - adoption of the euro, closing coal mines in the country, etc.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Article 2G affirms the principle of "at least two sources and, if possible, the sources should be primary".
a| at least two sources
a| at least two sources
The principle of "at least two sources" is respected in the work of Factcheck.bg.
It is explicitly envisaged in the methodology available on the website: "We require at least two independent sources of information to verify the main claim in the fact-check article."
“We use reputable sources such as official statistics, scientific articles published in reputable journals, papers by prominent think tanks and other NGOs, academia and experts with reputations for excellence and neutrality. We also consult books, news reports and fact-checks published by other organizations.
Key elements of all claims are verified based on at least two reliable information sources, except in cases when only one such source is relevant.” [1]
It is explicitly envisaged in the methodology available on the website: "We require at least two independent sources of information to verify the main claim in the fact-check article."
“We use reputable sources such as official statistics, scientific articles published in reputable journals, papers by prominent think tanks and other NGOs, academia and experts with reputations for excellence and neutrality. We also consult books, news reports and fact-checks published by other organizations.
Key elements of all claims are verified based on at least two reliable information sources, except in cases when only one such source is relevant.” [1]
Any post can illustrate this guiding principle. For example, about 50 sources - official and expert documents of a national and European nature - are indicated in the publication“When do coal power plants in the EU close - by country.“ [2]
To the post „No, wind turbines in Scotland do not produce green electricity through diesel“ there are seven sources of scientific and expert nature [3] , to the post “No, it is not true that Ukrainian children have priority in Bulgarian schools” the sources are ten etc. [4]
To the post „No, wind turbines in Scotland do not produce green electricity through diesel“ there are seven sources of scientific and expert nature [3] , to the post “No, it is not true that Ukrainian children have priority in Bulgarian schools” the sources are ten etc. [4]
Multiple primary sources have been used in all publications dealing with Covid-19 and vaccine use - typically expert or institutional sources are cited.
b| if possible, the sources should be primary
The rule is explicitly envisaged in the methodology: “Primary information sources are the most reliable and are always used whenever possible. Only when such sources are not available are secondary sources used. This lack of availability will be duly explained.” [5] Any post can illustrate this guiding principle.
Sources
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] When do coal power plants in the EU close - by country
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] When do coal power plants in the EU close - by country
[3] Не, вятърни турбини в Шотландия не произвеждат зелен ток чрез дизел/ No, wind turbines in Scotland do not produce green electricity through diesel https://factcheck.bg/ne-vyatarni-turbini-v-shotlandiya-ne-proizvezhdat-zelen-tok-chrez-dizel/
[4] Не е вярно, че украинските деца се приемат с предимство в българските училища https://factcheck.bg/ukrainskite-deca-ne-se-priemat-s-predimstvo-v-balgarskite-uchilishta/
[5] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2G.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2G.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 23/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has a pattern of using multiple sources. Not a single fact-checking publication in the randomised sample used for this assessment includes only one relevant named source. The sources are always multiple and in most cases are indicated with relevant links. The use of secondary sources is rare - when primary sources are not available, and this is indicated in the publications. The methodology of sourcing is clearly and thoroughly explained on the website.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art 2H requires transparency of sources. At the same time anonymous sources are not prohibited for use under certain circumstances.
The Factcheck.bg methodology explicitly states:
“Transparency of Sources
All information sources used to verify claims are clearly identified so that users can evaluate their credibility and carry out their own verifications if they wish. Anonymous sources are acceptable only when identifying the source would jeopardize his/her personal security.”
As a general rule, Factcheck.bg does not use anonymous sources in fact-checking articles. This is possible only in exceptional cases when a source is at risk and the information provided by him is necessary for the refutation and is confirmed by other available sources. [1]
An example of a very carefully shown history of exposure step by step, using different methods and technologies, is the publication named Lies come faster than vaccines [2]
No practice of using anonymous sources is observed.
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] Lies come faster than vaccines
As a general rule, Factcheck.bg does not use anonymous sources in fact-checking articles. This is possible only in exceptional cases when a source is at risk and the information provided by him is necessary for the refutation and is confirmed by other available sources. [1]
An example of a very carefully shown history of exposure step by step, using different methods and technologies, is the publication named Lies come faster than vaccines [2]
No practice of using anonymous sources is observed.
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] Lies come faster than vaccines
https://factcheck.bg/lazhite-idvat-po-barzo-ot-vaksinite/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2H.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2H.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 24/11/2023
The applicant has outlined in its methodology that anonymous sources are acceptable only if revealing their identity would jeopardize their personal security. As a pattern Factcheck.bg does not use anonymous sources. No use of anonymous sources has been identified in the randomized sample used for this assessment.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art 2I requires transparency of the expertise and credibility of the professionals quoted.
The Factcheck.bg methodology explicitly states: "We use reputable sources such as official statistics, scientific articles published in reputable journals, papers by prominent think tanks and other NGOs, academia and experts with reputations for excellence and neutrality." [1]
There is a particularly careful selection of experts on health topics, as the Covid-19 pandemic raised new and unexplored questions on which there was no scientific consensus.
In this context, the responsibility of journalism is great. In order to make maximum use of the country's scientific and expert potential to counter disinformation, Fatcheck.bg has created a scientific register / register of experts, who would like to cooperate in fact-checking in their field of their expertise. Fatcheck.bg publishes on its website an application form for applications. The main goal is to increase trust in the media and in science by creating better and more in-depth content.[2]
The Factcheck.bg methodology explicitly states: "We use reputable sources such as official statistics, scientific articles published in reputable journals, papers by prominent think tanks and other NGOs, academia and experts with reputations for excellence and neutrality." [1]
There is a particularly careful selection of experts on health topics, as the Covid-19 pandemic raised new and unexplored questions on which there was no scientific consensus.
In this context, the responsibility of journalism is great. In order to make maximum use of the country's scientific and expert potential to counter disinformation, Fatcheck.bg has created a scientific register / register of experts, who would like to cooperate in fact-checking in their field of their expertise. Fatcheck.bg publishes on its website an application form for applications. The main goal is to increase trust in the media and in science by creating better and more in-depth content.[2]
The level and expertise of the colaborators cannot be doubted. For example, the best specialists of the National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography were brought in to explain climate changes. They explain the magnetic storm that caused the red glow, which gave rise to conspiracy theories - the publication is called „No, the reason for the red glow over Bulgaria is not HAARP“ [3]
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQt33h46WrX6K14uXhPu6RC5hMU_bKfx_fd2Nqyao8kZpRbg/viewform
[3] No, the reason for the red glow over Bulgaria is not HAARP
https://factcheck.bg/ne-prichinata-za-chervenoto-siyanie-nad-balgariya-ne-e-haarp/
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeQt33h46WrX6K14uXhPu6RC5hMU_bKfx_fd2Nqyao8kZpRbg/viewform
[3] No, the reason for the red glow over Bulgaria is not HAARP
https://factcheck.bg/ne-prichinata-za-chervenoto-siyanie-nad-balgariya-ne-e-haarp/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2I.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 24/11/2023
Factcheck.bg uses mostly institutional sources, statistics, documents and other primary sources for checking the information at stake. Sometimes it quotes experts who are always introduced in their professional capacity. The authors usually make remarks for the credibility of the experts in case there is a problem with it. However, sometimes only one expert is quoted per publication, which is usually not enough to explore a complex issue. Factcheck.bg identifies, where necessary, the relevant interests of the sources they use where a typical member of the public might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
Art 2J requires each investigation to be edited by someone other than the author before publication.
Factcheck,bg methodology explicitly states:
How We Work on Selected Claims
How We Work on Selected Claims
"All potential claims are first considered in editorial meetings. The discussion includes potential conflicts, best journalistic approaches to the issue and finding information and assigning a journalist to work on the topic. Sometimes additional research is needed before the decision is made about whether a claim should be assigned to a journalist as a fact check. The reporter discusses with the editor the sources, experts, visual materials and general structure of the article. Once the journalist completes the draft, other members of the team read and comment on the article, and suggest potential edits. The editor exercises final responsibility for the clarity and accuracy of the article before giving a green light for publication."
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Factcheck,bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2J.
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Factcheck,bg fulfills the requirement written in Article 2J.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 24/11/2023
The editorial process of Factcheck.bg is outlined in the methodology section. According to the statement, the initial inquiry and the publication go through at least two rounds of discussions and the final say is the one of the editor-in-chief. I have found no evidence to question the assumption that each publication goes through editing by at least one other person different from the author.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 24/11/2023
I confirm that the language of Factcheck.bg (in the randomized sample) is precise, factual and non-emotive. The conclusions do not go beyond the scope of the claim that has been fact-checked.
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.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
The report confirms that Factcheck.bg has a genuine intention to have a positive impact on society and to contribute for spreading verified information in the Bulgarian public sphere. Therefore, the focus of its efforts is not only on the publication of fact-checking articles but also on distributing them is user friendly formats (for example - videos), which enhance media literacy. Other efforts are focused on building capacity of the organization to work with data so that it can better expose digital disinformation campaigns. Although Factcheck.bg is currently the largest and the most advanced fact-checking operation in Bulgaria, it is still comparatively “young” and could think of ways to improve, to learn for experience and could do this in discussions with readers, experts and people from the academia.
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: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. A operations must be editorially free and politically independent.
2. The parent organization follows the general ethical spirit and standards of the Code in compliance with Art. 1 E.
The Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria (AEJ-Bulgaria) is a non-profit association, established in 2010. It is a member of the International Association of European Journalists (www.aej.org), which brings together journalists and independent national associations in over 20 European countries. As a professional association, AEJ establishes positions and lobbies publicly on issues of crucial importance to working journalists across Europe such as freedom of speech, access to information, information integrity and the physical safety of journalists. The association also offers its members the opportunity to participate in a larger national and international professional and social network. The association is an official Observer in the Council of Europe’s Media Steering Committee.
According to Article 1 of the Organization's Statute, the Association is a legal entity with a non-profit purpose for public benefit, established and registered according to the provisions of Bulgarian legislation.The association is an apolitical, religiously neutral and independent organization of like-minded people.
3. Factcheck.bg is completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work. [2]
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work. [2]
Source:
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts AFP Proveri meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.A.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Needs more info
Date: 29/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has declared clearly on its website its editorial independence, impartiality and integrity. It is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate. Factcheck.bg has declared a policy of non-partisanship for the staff, which is also indicated on its website. I have found no evidence for any kind of political affiliation of Factcheck.bg.
The platform says that it does not engage in advocacy. On the other hand, it mostly deals with countering Kremlin disinformation, anti-EU narratives and other anti-democratic narratives (expressed in different forms - from political statements to conspiracy theories). I have not found evidence that Factcheck.bg has been engaged in any other kind of advocacy except from fighting Kremlin propaganda and disinformation.
However, I would like to propose that Factcheck.bg explains in a special paragraph in its methodology section (or in any other form) its mission to fight Kremlin and other anti-democratic propaganda. I have the impression that many people in Bulgaria do not understand the importance of fighting anti-democratic propaganda in a fair way and perceive the mission of Factcheck.bg as biased. That's why I think that it will be a good idea for the team to better explain its focus on disinformation coming from anti-democratic propaganda.
I will address later in this assessment the issue concerning the fair balance and proportionality in the number of the fact-checked claims of the Bulgarian politicians.
However, I would like to propose that Factcheck.bg explains in a special paragraph in its methodology section (or in any other form) its mission to fight Kremlin and other anti-democratic propaganda. I have the impression that many people in Bulgaria do not understand the importance of fighting anti-democratic propaganda in a fair way and perceive the mission of Factcheck.bg as biased. That's why I think that it will be a good idea for the team to better explain its focus on disinformation coming from anti-democratic propaganda.
I will address later in this assessment the issue concerning the fair balance and proportionality in the number of the fact-checked claims of the Bulgarian politicians.
Assessor
Needs more info
Date: 05/01/2024
We do not accept defining our fact-checking activities regarding the Kremlin propaganda as “advocacy”. We believe that any foreign propaganda and disinformation trying to bring harm to our society and undermine our democratic values should be exposed and debunk. What we do is explaining in relevant articles how the disinformation in question contradicts to our public order, as stated in lows, treaties, official documents, scientific consensus, etc.
However, convincing people of these values and sustaining our democratic order is not a task which could or should be performed by us – it is a matter of public debates involving institutions, political parties, media, academia and the whole society.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. B operations must not endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office.
Fatcheck.bg strictly follows the requirements for non-partisanship and fairness, The fact-checking operation declares: "We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity. Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased. "
To the best of my knowledge - there are no facts and practices in violation of this standard.
Source:
https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Fatcheck.bg strictly follows the requirements for non-partisanship and fairness, The fact-checking operation declares: "We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity. Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased. "
To the best of my knowledge - there are no facts and practices in violation of this standard.
Source:
https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.B.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 24/11/2023
I have found no evidence that Factcheck.bg endorses any political party or candidate. I have never heard anyone from the team to advise the public to vote for a particular party or politician. At the same time I would to mention that there is evidence that members of the team of Factcheck.bg have been targeted by representatives or supporters of the prorussian populist party "Vazrazhdane" for public attacks and online harassement in social media. As I have mentioned earlier, claims of the leader of "Vazrazhdane" Kostadin Kostadinov are more often fact-checked by Factcheck.bg on comparative basis in the "Politicheck" section because they have a higher risk of being false or misleading. In August 2023 the parent organization of Factcheck.bg - AEJ Bulgaria, issued an official statement to protect the team of the fact-checking platform from online harassement: https://aej-bulgaria.org/01082023/
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. C operations must 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
This operation's partnerships are public and Code-compliant.
Factcheck.bg strictly follows the requirements for non-partisanship and fairness,
Source: https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
This operation's partnerships are public and Code-compliant.
Factcheck.bg strictly follows the requirements for non-partisanship and fairness,
Source: https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts Factheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.C.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 24/11/2023
Factcheck.bg is not as an organization affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate. I have found no evidence for any kind of political affiliation of Factcheck.bg or any other similar partisan activity/partnership.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-ne-e-vyarno-che-samo-balgariya-krie-kakvi-orazhiya-dava-na-ukrajna/
https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-ne-e-vyarno-che-samo-balgariya-krie-kakvi-orazhiya-dava-na-ukrajna/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. D operations must not focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum.
In Factcheck.bg methodology is explicitly written: We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. [1]
Society is polarized on various topics, among which the main ones are geopolitical orientation (East - West), the war in Ukraine and the attitude towards Putin's policy, poverty and income policy, etc. Political parties and leading political figures differ in their attitudes to the issues mentioned.
In Factcheck.bg methodology is explicitly written: We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. [1]
Society is polarized on various topics, among which the main ones are geopolitical orientation (East - West), the war in Ukraine and the attitude towards Putin's policy, poverty and income policy, etc. Political parties and leading political figures differ in their attitudes to the issues mentioned.
The operation points out 10 fact-checks in Bulgarian that show the coverage of players and narratives from across the political spectrum. False statements of activists and leaders of the parties BSP, DPS, GERB, VMRO, etc. were revealed in the attached publications. [2]
It is found that fact-checking has been applied in relation to the communities and political parties that are opposed on the above issues.
For example, there are publications concerning the controversial figure of the leader of the pro-Russian party Vazrazhdane Kostadin Kostadinov as a source of disinformation [3], but also - a publication that defends the party Vazrazhdane against false claims that its members are accused of espionage. [4]
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2]see provided list by the fact-checking operation
[3]PolitiCheck: "80% of wind turbine blades should be buried" and more false statements by Kostadin Kostadinov
[4]PolitiCheck: Yes, those arrested for espionage in London have not been nominated by Revival in 2021 polls.
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts my conclusion is that Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.D.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Needs more info
Date: 27/11/2023
I could not find specific reference to the standard of not focusing unduly on one particular political party in the methodology of Factcheck.bg.
The selection of the 10 fact-checking publications from 2022 that have been attached here does confirm diversity with regard to political actors whose claims have been examined by the team of Factcheck.bg.
On the other hand, a review of the political claims examined in the “PolitiCheck” section of the website since the inauguration of the new government in Bulgaria in June 2023 has shown that 5 (out of 9 fact-checks), i. e. 55%, focus on claims of representatives of „Vazrazhdane“, which is the third party in the parliament and which has identified itself as opposition. The other 4 (out of 9 fact-checks) examine claims by representatives of 3 other political parties (two of them – in opposition).
I assume that “Vazrazhdane”, which is a prorussian populist party, is fact-checked more often in comparison to all of the other political parties in Bulgaria due the fact that it produces more disinformation. According to the standards applicants should not veer into false equivalence and if one party or actor is broadcasting more falsehoods, there may naturally be more fact-checks of their speech on the applicant’s website.
On the other hand, I think it would be fair if Factcheck.bg could commend and explain in details why it predominantly focuses on the claims of “Vazrazhdane” in order not to be accussed of bias by any third party. It will be valuable as well if Factcheck.bg explains why political actors from the opposition have more often been fact-checked in the “PolitiCheck” section in comparison to parties from the ruling majority and ministers from the government since June 2023. Only 1 out of 9 claims fact-checked in the “PolitiCheck” section since June 2023 regards representative of the ruling majority.
Assessor
Needs more info
Date: 05/01/2024
As the assessor rightly notes, “Vazrazhdane” is a populist party. It deliberately uses disinformation in order to mobilise its supporters. It could not be said whether they spread Russian disinformation because they are related to the Kremlin or because it suits their domestic political agenda. Whatever the case, we cannot neglect them in order to achieve a fake appearance of balance and impartiality. What we do, however, is carefully choose the false claims of this party`s representatives, which we debunk (since they produce a significant amount of false or misleading claims). As for the ruling parties, we monitor them as closely as all the other parliamentary parties and state institutions. Here we face at least two significant challenges. First, in many cases, there are only contradicting claims but no public information, documents, statistics or any documented facts against which these claims are to be checked. Secondly, there are cases in which we depend on state institutions to provide information which is not publicly available. We have several cases in which we never received the required information. We are currently suing the Central Electoral Committee for refusing to answer our questions. Thirdly, the representatives of the mainstream parties (in our case – the ruling majority) traditionally use more vague and blanket language, where fact-based claims are rarely found. This was also established by the scientific study “The Mediatised Dimension of the Foreign Policy” (Neikova, Kovacheva, 2017).
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. Е operations must 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.
The policy of the parent organization, the editorial standards and the facts (no information on violations of the standards) prove that Factcheck.bg is in accordance with the requirement of Article 3.1.E.
The policy of the parent organization, the editorial standards and the facts (no information on violations of the standards) prove that Factcheck.bg is in accordance with the requirement of Article 3.1.E.
According to the principles of Factchecxk.bg: “We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.”
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.”
To the best of my knowledge there are no such contracts.
Source: https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Source: https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.E.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 27/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has clearly stated that not a single member of the staff is in any way affiliated with any political party, officials or candidates. I have found absolutely no evidence that the platform in any breaches this standard.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. F operations must explicitly address in publications any reasonable conflict of interest or political bias, including from experts or organizations cited.
The editorial standards explicitly require Factcheck.bg journalists to declare any potential conflict of interest in their financial reporting to their bureau or service chief and to the regional editor. ”We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.”[1]
The editorial standards explicitly require Factcheck.bg journalists to declare any potential conflict of interest in their financial reporting to their bureau or service chief and to the regional editor. ”We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.”[1]
Source: [1] https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
There are not such examples yet in original fact-checks in Bulgarian.
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.F.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 29/11/2023
Factcheck.bg identifies, where necessary, the relevant interests of the sources they use where a typical member of the public might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided. Possible conflicts of interest of the quoted speakers or organizations are identified most often in the “Disinformation” section of the website, when targeted disinformation campaigns or social media disinformation campaigns are exposed.
In the randomized sample that I have examined I have not found a single case of conflict-of-interest statement of Factcheck.bg or of an author of a publication. There are statements only about the sources used and the name of the donor/grantor that supports financially Factcheck.bg to produce the article in question.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. G operations must have internal policies barring employees from making partisan statements in the name of the operation or organization and have procedures in place to take action if they do. Operations take steps to ensure that any advocacy or views on policy issues held by staff are managed in such a way that a reasonable member of the public would not see the organization’s work as biassed.
Impartiality is a leading principle in the journalism ethics.
Factcheck.bg standards and best practices bar employees from partisanship: „.Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased. “[1]
Source: https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.G.
Impartiality is a leading principle in the journalism ethics.
Factcheck.bg standards and best practices bar employees from partisanship: „.Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased. “[1]
Source: https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Conclusion: Given all written policies and related facts Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.G.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 29/11/2023
The internal policies barring employees from making partisan statements are outlined in the methodology section. My general impression is that the representatives of the Factcheck.bg team that I personally follow on social media and in their media appearances stick to the rule that they should not express political bias or any other partisan statements. They comment mostly on disinformation issues and they often criticize Kremlin propaganda as the main source of anti-democratic propaganda in Bulgaria.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
We don't have such internal policies, the topic is addressed in our Principles of work: https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. H operations must 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.
As far as the fact checking operation has not adopted an explicit policy regarding gifts, favors, or services with advantageous conditions that go beyond common social and courtesy items, in this case, in my opinion, the principles of the Association of European Journalists and the Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria are relevant.
As far as the fact checking operation has not adopted an explicit policy regarding gifts, favors, or services with advantageous conditions that go beyond common social and courtesy items, in this case, in my opinion, the principles of the Association of European Journalists and the Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria are relevant.
The internal ethical standards for the Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria include explicit prohibition of any kind of compensation that may compromise the image of the Association and/or undermine our independence and identity:
– Not to accept payment on behalf of the organization that may compromise the image of the association and/or undermine our independence and identity.
– To refuse any offer of compensation or financial benefit from persons who may seek favorable treatment from the organization or actions that are contrary to the statutes of Association.
Source: https://aej-bulgaria.org/code-of-conduct/
Conclusion: Given all written standards and related facts my conclusion is that Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.H.
Conclusion: Given all written standards and related facts my conclusion is that Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.H.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Needs more info
Date: 29/11/2023
As far as I understand, Factcheck.bg says that before the application it had not have internal policies barring employees from accepting any kind of gifts or services in professional context. They probably intend to stick to that rule but as long I do not see any clear message in this context on their website, it would be better for them to clarify how they intend to abide this requirement of the Code.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Impartiality and Integrity
Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to Art. 3.1. I operations make available and easily accessible on their website these and any other non-partisanship policies.
These non- partisanship policies are prominent and easily accessible on the website as follows:
These non- partisanship policies are prominent and easily accessible on the website as follows:
“Impartiality and Integrity
We are completely non-partisan and neither staff nor contributors are affiliated with any political parties, officials or candidates. We do not take sides in any political debates on any issues except for transparency, accuracy and information integrity.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Team members are forbidden from engaging in advocacy. While every citizen is free to have her or his own opinion, contributors do not express their opinions publicly on issues of social significance in any way which might lead the public to see the work of Factcheck.bg as biased.
We recognize the enormous social responsibility of fact-checking. We are dedicated to complete fairness and impartiality on all sides of every issue. The team employs constant vigilance to maintain awareness of bias and to avoid favoring any side of any issue. We avoid even the appearance of bias or potential conflict of interest because it would compromise the quality of our work.
Editorial Independence
The same impartiality applies to relations with our funders. Our sponsors share our concern for information integrity and we are grateful that they support our approach. Yet funders play no role in the choice of claims we check or how they are verified and have no influence over how we work. Factcheck.bg alone has full responsibility for all editorial decisions. The team verifies every claim equally - regardless of whether or not they may overlap or conflict with the interests of our funders.”
Conclusion: Given all written standards and related facts my conclusion is that Factcheck meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.I.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 29/11/2023
I think that generally the statement on the website outlines in a clear and comprehensive manner the non-partisanship policies of Factcheck.bg. The statement is available and easily accessible.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Factcheck.bg does not engage in advocacy.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
No accessible information on engaging Factcheck in advocacy work.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the requirement of Art. 3.1.I.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 17/12/2023
Technical correction in Conclusion: instead of Art. 3.1.I. read 3.1.J
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 29/11/2023
Factcheck.bg has outlined in its methodology that it does not engage in advocacy. It mostly deals with countering Kremlin disinformation and other anti-democratic narratives (expressed in different forms - from political statements to conspiracy theories). I have not found evidence that Factcheck.bg has been engaged in any other kind of advocacy except from fighting Kremlin propaganda.
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: 01/08/2023
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 02/12/2023
According to the Art. 3.2. А, operations must obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.
The practice of Factcheck.bg testifies to strict compliance with the requirements for minimizing harm. The fact-checking operation testifies that they do not have published fact checks with images and/or identity of subjects of an investigation for whom there is a reasonable concern for their safety.
As regards the identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety, the GDPR provisions have been implemented.
Sources:
[1] information provided by Factcheck.bg
Conclusion: AFP Proveri meets the criteria in the Art. 3.2. А.
The practice of Factcheck.bg testifies to strict compliance with the requirements for minimizing harm. The fact-checking operation testifies that they do not have published fact checks with images and/or identity of subjects of an investigation for whom there is a reasonable concern for their safety.
As regards the identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety, the GDPR provisions have been implemented.
Sources:
[1] information provided by Factcheck.bg
Conclusion: AFP Proveri meets the criteria in the Art. 3.2. А.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Please ignore previous version.
Revised text:
According to the Art. 3.2. А, operations must obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.
The practice of Factcheck.bg testifies about strict compliance with the requirements for minimizing harm. The fact-checking operation testifies that they do not have published fact checks with images and/or identity of subjects of an investigation for whom there is a reasonable concern for their safety.As regards the identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety, the GDPR provisions have been implemented.
Revised text:
According to the Art. 3.2. А, operations must obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.
The practice of Factcheck.bg testifies about strict compliance with the requirements for minimizing harm. The fact-checking operation testifies that they do not have published fact checks with images and/or identity of subjects of an investigation for whom there is a reasonable concern for their safety.As regards the identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety, the GDPR provisions have been implemented.
No publications were found that reflect pending legal processes or investigations and affect the personality of their participants. There is no breach of the standard requiring identity of subjects of an investigation to be protected.
Sources:
[1] information provided by Factcheck.bg
Conclusion: According to the written policies and published fact-checks Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.2. А.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 30/11/2023
In the randomized sample of publications, I have not found a case where special safety considerations with regard to the subjects of the investigation are needed. I have no reason to doubt that Factcheck.bg will undertake the necessary precaution measures, including obscuring images or identity of subjects, if such a case emerges in the future.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
When we use screenshots of Facebook posts by random users (not politicians, influencers or any kind of public persons) to illustrate disinformation, we hide the names of the profiles.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
According to the Art. 3.2. B the operations take measures to avoid exposing the identity of sources of UGC to undue public scrutiny.
The rule of 3.2.B refers to an analysis of misinformation spread by ordinary social media users.
In these cases, the principle is that the focus of the publication is not on the identity of the people when it is not relevant to the investigation.The text of the fact-check usually does not name such users or highlight their identity in any other way. When the misinformation was spread by a public figure - then the name of the source with relevant context could be included. Exceptions are made even in such cases when it is known that identification would put his safety at risk. [1]
In these cases, the principle is that the focus of the publication is not on the identity of the people when it is not relevant to the investigation.The text of the fact-check usually does not name such users or highlight their identity in any other way. When the misinformation was spread by a public figure - then the name of the source with relevant context could be included. Exceptions are made even in such cases when it is known that identification would put his safety at risk. [1]
For example, profile names are hidden in posts [2] [3 ]
An article about a widely distributed video in Facebook discusses the correctness of the narrative of "US interference in the elections of foreign countries". The identity of the users commenting on the video has not been revealed. [4]
Another post is dedicated to text from a textbook that is widely commented on social networks. The names of the users who commented on the case were not mentioned.[ 5]
A completely fictional claim that "in Italy they do not have children lately" is spread through various publications in many Bulgarian Facebook groups, as well as in Telegram and other social media. Factcheck.bg presents information of where the fabricated claim comes from. No user names are mentioned. [6]
Sources:
[1] information provided by the fact-checking operation
[2] Не е вярно, че България е подкрепяла нацизма при гласуване в ООН
[4] Популярно видео във Фейсбук не е “доказателство” за американска намеса в избори в България / Popular Facebook Video Is Not 'Proof' of U.S. Interference in Bulgaria's Election
[5] Ромска легенда стана повод за подвеждащи публикации във Фейсбук /Roma legend became the reason for misleading posts on Facebook
[6] „Нито едно раждане в Италия от 3 месеца“ – как измислено твърдение обслужи няколко конспирации/"Not a single birth in Italy for 3 months" - how a fictional claim served several conspiracies“
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.2. B.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 30/11/2023
According to what I have found, I confirm that Factcheck.bg hides/does not include in the screenshots the names and the pictures of the random social media users who sometimes unwillingly spread disinformation. On the other hand, it seems that the platform has good expertise in identifying troll or other targeted campaigns in social media and in this context, it usually identifies the names of the frequent spreaders of disinformation in order to expose the technology of the disinformation campaigns. This is always backed by evidence.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
We have not published this kind of personal information. In general we work with public documents and data.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 3.2. D envisages protection from harassment. The operations should anonymize any personal information that could allow the harassment of persons.
The GDPR provisions have been strictly implemented by Factcheck.bg,
No violation of the rules for the protection of personal data was found in their publications.
Personal data that are not anonymized in violation of the requirements of the GDPR and the Code are not found in fact-checks.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.2. D.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 30/11/2023
As a rule, Fachcheck.bg avoids publishing personal information that could lead to the harassment of people mentioned in a publication. As I have mentioned earlier, some authors of Factcheck.bg themselves have been subjects of online harassment themselves, according to public information.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
We have not published this kind of personal information. In general we work with public documents and data.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 3.2. D envisages protection from harassment. The operations should anonymize any personal information that could allow the harassment of persons.
The GDPR provisions have been strictly implemented by Factcheck.bg,
No violation of the rules for the protection of personal data was found in their publications.
Personal data that are not anonymized in violation of the requirements of the GDPR and the Code are not found in fact-checks.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.2. D.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 30/11/2023
As a rule, Fachcheck.bg avoids publishing personal information that could lead to the harassment of people mentioned in a publication. As I have mentioned earlier, some authors of Factcheck.bg themselves have been subjects of online harassment themselves, according to public information.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Our correction policy is detailed on our website.
Until now, no person or organisation has asked for a right-of-reply, or provided any evidence to challenge our verdicts. There is only one case, but the person acted as an expert and challenged our method of calculation. After internal discussion and another calculation we published a corrected version of the article.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 3.2.E refers to the right of reply, which must be granted to affected persons - individuals or organizations - who is the source of the inaccurate claim and/or is the subject of significant criticism or allegations.
The application of this standard can only be assessed on the methodology adopted by the Factcheck.bg, since practically there are no cases where the affected persons by fact-checks have requested the right of reply. According to the provided information Factcheck.bg follows the Ethical code of Bulgarian media where this issue is addressed:
1.2 Corrections
1.2.1 We will post a clear and sufficiently conspicuous correction as soon as it is proven that inaccurate or misleading information has been posted, and we will apologize if necessary.
1.2.2 We will provide a right of reply to individuals and organizations directly affected by inaccurate or misleading postings. [1]
There is an isolated case when the person acted as an expert and challenged our method of calculation. After internal discussion a corrected version of the article has been bublished. [2]
Source:
[1] Ethical code of Bulgarian media
[2] Какво показват данните за смъртността от Ковид -19
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art 3.2. Е.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 30/11/2023
I have not found any case of the traditional for journalism right-of-reply practice on the Factcheck.bg website. The applicant says that nobody has asked for this so far. On the other hand, the team has stated clearly and accessibly its corrections policy, so there is a clear way for the audience and the affected persons to communicate their feedback to Factcheck.bg and to ask for response.
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: 01/08/2023
We don't have such training and protocol, but it is on our agenda and we are looking for funding to develop it.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
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: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
The implementation of this standard in Art. 3.3. Honest corrections can generally be assessed on the basis of the written rules and the practices for making corrections. Article 3.3.A deals with corrections of non-essential errors, when a correction note is not needed.
There is a special section “Corrections” in the Factcheck.bg methodology.[1]
“If you believe we have published an error, big or small, we want to hear about it. Accuracy is the foundation of our work and all questions about our published fact checks are taken very seriously. Those which are found to have substance will be thoroughly investigated and a correction will be published.
In the case of a minor error that does not alter the fact-finding result, the necessary correction shall be made to the published text and a footnote will indicate that a correction has been made.
In case of a significant error which questions the result of the fact check, a new fact check will be performed by other team members. New evidence will be sought and compared with the findings of the initial fact check. The team will then try to find the cause of the error. In such cases, the old fact check will be removed and the new fact check will be published. The article will include a thorough and detailed explanation why the original text was removed and the results of the recent review.
Readers are invited to contact us via email ([email protected]) to notify us of any errors in published materials. We review all evidence brought to us and will communicate with the reader about the steps to be made based on our assessment.”
In the case of a minor error that does not alter the fact-finding result, the necessary correction shall be made to the published text and a footnote will indicate that a correction has been made.
In case of a significant error which questions the result of the fact check, a new fact check will be performed by other team members. New evidence will be sought and compared with the findings of the initial fact check. The team will then try to find the cause of the error. In such cases, the old fact check will be removed and the new fact check will be published. The article will include a thorough and detailed explanation why the original text was removed and the results of the recent review.
Readers are invited to contact us via email ([email protected]) to notify us of any errors in published materials. We review all evidence brought to us and will communicate with the reader about the steps to be made based on our assessment.”
It is explained how to act in case of a factual error in two scenarios: if the text is subject to editing and if the error is so significant that the article must be removed. Any updates, clarifications, or new information added since publication are noted at the end of the articles. There is no notes for only typographical, grammatical or stylistic mistakes.
Users are invited to report if they believe there is a factual error in a post.
Users are invited to report if they believe there is a factual error in a post.
A list of the corrections is published online.
·
Source:
https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. – A.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
Factcheck.bg has a special section on the website about its corrections policy. There it has listed four publications with corrections, as of the date of the assessment. All of them clearly indicate the date and the essence of the correction.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
We don't have such examples.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
The requirement of 3.3.В is provided in the rules of Factcheck.bg. [1]
When the mistake is significant, the correction should be made 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.
When the mistake is significant, the correction should be made 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.
According to the information, provided by the operation, and my observation, Factcheck.bg does not have such cases.
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. В.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
To my knowledge, so far Factcheck.bg has not have a case with an entirely incorrect publication, which had to be removed from the website or the social media channels of the platform. In its corrections section the team says that in case of an entirely incorrect publication or final judgment, the initial publication will be removed from the website. It will be replaced by the correct version of the story and there will be a comprehensive explanation about the reasons for the replacement. I assume that the same approach will be applied to the social media channels of the platform.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
We don't have such examples.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
The requirement of Art. 3.3.C is provided in the rules of Factcheck.bg [1], but there is no such case in fact-checks.
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. С.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
The previous message (3.3.B.) applies here as well.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
PolitiCheck: Видео невярно внушава, че българите в Украйна са подложени на етническо преследване, 31.07.2023
https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-video-nevyarno-vnushava-che-balgarite-v-ukrajna-sa-podlozheni-na-etnichesko-presledvane/
Колаж в социалните медии заблуждава, че Украйна извършва престъпления срещу българи, 11.07.2023
https://factcheck.bg/kolazh-v-socialnite-medii-zabluzhdava-che-ukrajna-izvarshva-prestapleniya-sreshtu-balgari/
Подвеждащи са снимките, обвързващи политици с представители на нацисткия режим в Германия, 18.04.2022
https://factcheck.bg/podvezhdashti-sa-snimkite-obvarzvashti-politici-s-predstaviteli-na-nacistkiya-rezhim-v-germaniya/
Какво показват данните за смъртността от Ковид-19 в Англия, които Мангъров разпространи, 12.09.2021
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-video-nevyarno-vnushava-che-balgarite-v-ukrajna-sa-podlozheni-na-etnichesko-presledvane/
Колаж в социалните медии заблуждава, че Украйна извършва престъпления срещу българи, 11.07.2023
https://factcheck.bg/kolazh-v-socialnite-medii-zabluzhdava-che-ukrajna-izvarshva-prestapleniya-sreshtu-balgari/
Подвеждащи са снимките, обвързващи политици с представители на нацисткия режим в Германия, 18.04.2022
https://factcheck.bg/podvezhdashti-sa-snimkite-obvarzvashti-politici-s-predstaviteli-na-nacistkiya-rezhim-v-germaniya/
Какво показват данните за смъртността от Ковид-19 в Англия, които Мангъров разпространи, 12.09.2021
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 3.3.D requires the addition of any new information to a publication to be mentioned in an update note in the same publication.
This is happening mainly when the fact-checkers are reflecting and analyzing more dynamic processes or when they are obtaining new evidences.
The requirement of 3.3.В is provided in the rules of Factcheck.bg, as the addition is considered in the context of the corrections, which must be explicitly noted and explained to the same publication [1]
Looking through the posts with corrections, you can see that some of the posts are marked as "amended and supplemented". The addition is carefully explained - in this case, with obtaining of new information [2]
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
[2] What do the data on the death rate from Covid-19 in England show, 12.09.2021
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. D.
This is happening mainly when the fact-checkers are reflecting and analyzing more dynamic processes or when they are obtaining new evidences.
The requirement of 3.3.В is provided in the rules of Factcheck.bg, as the addition is considered in the context of the corrections, which must be explicitly noted and explained to the same publication [1]
Looking through the posts with corrections, you can see that some of the posts are marked as "amended and supplemented". The addition is carefully explained - in this case, with obtaining of new information [2]
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
[2] What do the data on the death rate from Covid-19 in England show, 12.09.2021
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. D.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
This practice is outlined in the corrections policy section of Factcheck.bg and all of the listed four publications stick precisely to the rule.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art.3.3.E envisages a corrections policy and a record of the corrections published over the previous year to be available and easily accessible on the website of the operations.
The corrections policy is visible and easily accessible on the webpage of Factcheck.bg. On the same page a list of correcions and hyperlinks to them are published
The corrections policy is visible and easily accessible on the webpage of Factcheck.bg. On the same page a list of correcions and hyperlinks to them are published
PolitiCheck: Видео невярно внушава, че българите в Украйна са подложени на етническо преследване, 31.07.2023
https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-video-nevyarno-vnushava-che-balgarite-v-ukrajna-sa-podlozheni-na-etnichesko-presledvane/
Колаж в социалните медии заблуждава, че Украйна извършва престъпления срещу българи, 11.07.2023
https://factcheck.bg/kolazh-v-socialnite-medii-zabluzhdava-che-ukrajna-izvarshva-prestapleniya-sreshtu-balgari/
Подвеждащи са снимките, обвързващи политици с представители на нацисткия режим в Германия, 18.04.2022
https://factcheck.bg/podvezhdashti-sa-snimkite-obvarzvashti-politici-s-predstaviteli-na-nacistkiya-rezhim-v-germaniya/
Какво показват данните за смъртността от Ковид-19 в Англия, които Мангъров разпространи, 12.09.2021
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
https://factcheck.bg/politicheck-video-nevyarno-vnushava-che-balgarite-v-ukrajna-sa-podlozheni-na-etnichesko-presledvane/
Колаж в социалните медии заблуждава, че Украйна извършва престъпления срещу българи, 11.07.2023
https://factcheck.bg/kolazh-v-socialnite-medii-zabluzhdava-che-ukrajna-izvarshva-prestapleniya-sreshtu-balgari/
Подвеждащи са снимките, обвързващи политици с представители на нацисткия режим в Германия, 18.04.2022
https://factcheck.bg/podvezhdashti-sa-snimkite-obvarzvashti-politici-s-predstaviteli-na-nacistkiya-rezhim-v-germaniya/
Какво показват данните за смъртността от Ковид-19 в Англия, които Мангъров разпространи, 12.09.2021
https://factcheck.bg/kakvo-pokazvat-dannite-za-smartnostta-ot-kovid-19-v-angliya-koito-mangarov-razprostrani/
Source:
https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. E.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
The corrections policy of Factcheck.bg is clearly outlined in a special and easily accessible section on the website. It includes a record of all corrections published since the launch of the platform.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Information on how requests for corrections are being assessed is included in the respective policy and is easily accessible on the website of Factcheck.bg. The principle of transparency and dialog is also emphasized: “We review all evidence brought to us and will communicate with the reader about the steps to be made based on our assessment.” [1]
Fact-checking teams check only facts, not opinions or beliefs, on subjects of public interest.[2]
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 3.3. – F.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
Factcheck.bg has explained on its website how requests from the public are assessed. The team has provided a special email for requests from readers. According to the corrections policy guidelines, Factcheck.bg will send a reply to the reader with an explanation of how it will consider and proceed with the request. The platform does not seem to use an external independent reviewer for complaints. It seems that the review process is entirely internal.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
A request for corrections can be submitted on the website of Factcheck.bg
The corrections policy is easily accessible, along with the starting point for submitting a claim.
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/correction-policy/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Art. 3.3. G.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 01/12/2023
The fact-checking operation does have an easy-to-find channel where the public can request a correction – an email. It has another channel – a special online form on the website, where readers can send different claims and cases, which need fact-checking.
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: 01/08/2023
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
We don't have such examples.
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: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/team/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.1.A requires transparency of the organizational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.
A. Organizational profile and structure
Factcheck.bg is an initiative of the Assossiation of European Journalists - Bulgaria (AEJ – Bulgaria) [1]
The Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria (AEJ-Bulgaria) is a non-profit association, established in 2010.
A. Organizational profile and structure
Factcheck.bg is an initiative of the Assossiation of European Journalists - Bulgaria (AEJ – Bulgaria) [1]
The Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria (AEJ-Bulgaria) is a non-profit association, established in 2010.
It is a member of the International Association of European Journalists (www.aej.org), which brings together journalists and independent national associations in over 20 European countries. As a professional association, AEJ establishes positions and lobbies publicly on issues of crucial importance to working journalists across Europe such as freedom of speech, access to information, information integrity and the physical safety of journalists. The association also offers its members the opportunity to participate in a larger national and international professional and social network. The association is an official Observer in the Council of Europe’s Media Steering Committee.
B. Editorial control
The editor has editorial control over all content published on Factcheck.bg. The journalists conduct the fact checks and write the articles which are edited by the editor before appearing on the site. Decisions about which claims to check, how they are checked and how the fact checks are written are made jointly by the journalists and the editor.
The Project Manager is responsible for the financial, legal and technical sustainability of the project. She also leads the long-term strategy of Factcheck.bg. The Partnerships Coordinator is responsible for the project's external relations with donors and partner organizations. The Database Consultant supports the team in their technology- and data-related investigations. The Social Media Manager helps promote published fact checks and the broader mission of Factcheck.bg.
The editor has editorial control over all content published on Factcheck.bg. The journalists conduct the fact checks and write the articles which are edited by the editor before appearing on the site. Decisions about which claims to check, how they are checked and how the fact checks are written are made jointly by the journalists and the editor.
The Project Manager is responsible for the financial, legal and technical sustainability of the project. She also leads the long-term strategy of Factcheck.bg. The Partnerships Coordinator is responsible for the project's external relations with donors and partner organizations. The Database Consultant supports the team in their technology- and data-related investigations. The Social Media Manager helps promote published fact checks and the broader mission of Factcheck.bg.
The editor is presented online [2]
Sources
[1] https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/en/team/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in Art. 4.1.A
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
Factcheck.bg has clearly and adequately indicated on the website its organizational structure and how the editorial power is exercised. The names of the editorial team and the managers of the project are explicitly stated. There are also short biographies of the people involved in the editorial process and the management.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art.4.1.B requires information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organization to be easily accessible on the website of the operation. In addition people or entities holding over 5% of the shares to be disclosed.
1. Factcheck.bg is an initiative of AEJ – Bulgaria. [1]
1. Factcheck.bg is an initiative of AEJ – Bulgaria. [1]
2. AEJ – Bulgaria is registered under Bulgarian jurisdiction. [2]
3. AEJ- Bulgaria is non – profit organization.
4. AEJ- Bulgaria is registered as non-profit with number 176007906 (in Bulgarian – ЕИК, uniform identification code). Trade registrar is publicly accessible.
5. N/A – there are no shares , respectively shareholders.
Information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organization AEJ - Bulgaria is easily accessible on the website of the operation
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
[2] https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%b7%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%81/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in Art. 4.1.B
Information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organization AEJ - Bulgaria is easily accessible on the website of the operation
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
[2] https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%b7%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%81/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in Art. 4.1.B
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
The applicant has provided detailed information about its legal status and ownership. Factcheck.bg is a distinct team within a legally registered nonprofit organization (Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria) which supports professional journalism. Factcheck.bg is set up for the purpose of fact-checking. Factcheck.bg clearly indicates on its website its relation to AEJ-Bulgaria.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.1.C envisages transparency of the governance of the operation and/or the parent organization.
Factcheck.bg is an initiative of AEJ – Bulgaria, non-profit under Bulgarian jurisdiction. [1]
Factcheck.bg is an initiative of AEJ – Bulgaria, non-profit under Bulgarian jurisdiction. [1]
Information about both the editorial team and the management is publicly available on the Factcheck.bg's website. [2]
The Editorial team includes recognized and young journalists headed by a Chief Editor.
The management includes three media specialists with different experience in journalism and data science.
The management includes three media specialists with different experience in journalism and data science.
The leader is the head of the National Media Literacy Coalition Kristina Hristova.
Sources:
[1] https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%b7%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%81/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/who-we-are/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1.C
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
There is clear and complete information on the applicant’s website about the governance of the platform. There are several links that lead the reader to the website of the parent organization, which is also a non-profit and is fully transparent about its organizational structure and governance team.
Proof of registration/legal status:
Proof of ownership:
Proof of governance structure:
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 11/12/2023
The operation is an initiative of AEJ - Bulgaria. According to the Statute of AEJ at the Internet address https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%b7%d0%b0-%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%81/statute/ , Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria is a non-profit legal entity in public benefit, established and registered according to the provisions of the Bulgarian legislation. The association is apolitical, religiously neutral and independent organization of like-minded people.
According to Art. 3 The registered office and address of the Association are located in the city of Sofia, Metropolitan Municipality, Mladost District, Mladost-3 quarter, block 305, entrance 2, apartment 91, postal code: 1712;
According to Art. 6-8 The association carries out non-profit activities for the public benefit; The association may carry out additional economic activity related to the subject of the main activity, the proceeds being used only to achieve the goals defined in the Statute; The association does not distribute profits.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
From the file, provided by the applicant, and from a reference, made by myself in the Official Commercial Registry, I confirm that there is publicly available proof of the ownership, legal status and governance of the parent organization – AEJ-Bulgaria. I have found that AEJ-Bulgaria operates by two legal entities – a non-profit organization (since 2010) and a company, Ltd. (since April 2021). The company is fully owned by the non-profit.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 11/12/2023
The operation is not a legal entity. It is an initiative of the NGO, called AEJ – Bulgaria.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
The ownership is the Official Commercial Registry of Bulgaria.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 11/12/2023
The information on governance body (Board) of the parent organization AEJ-Bulgaria is public. There is also information on members of the AEJ-Bulgaria.
https://aej-bulgaria.org/members/
https://aej-bulgaria.org/members/
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
The governance structure of the non-profit and the Ltd. is disclosed in the Official Commercial Registry of Bulgaria.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/team/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.1.E. requires regularly updated information about the identity of the editors or decision makers behind the operation, including any relevant previous roles to be available and easily accessible on the website of the operation.
There is a presentation of two teams - editorial team and management - on the website of Factcheck.bg [1]
There is a presentation of two teams - editorial team and management - on the website of Factcheck.bg [1]
The organizational structure of Factcheck.bg includes a Project Manager, Partnership Coordinator, Editor-in-Chief, Database Consultant, Social Media Manager and four journalists.
The editor has editorial control over all content published on Factcheck.bg. The journalists conduct the fact checks and write the articles which are edited by the editor before appearing on the site. Decisions about which claims to check, how they are checked and how the fact checks are written are made jointly by the journalists and the editor.
The Project Manager is responsible for the financial, legal and technical sustainability of the project. She also leads the long-term strategy of Factcheck.bg. The Partnerships Coordinator is responsible for the project's external relations with donors and partner organizations. The Database Consultant supports the team in their technology- and data-related investigations. The Social Media Manager helps promote published fact checks and the broader mission of Factcheck.bg.
The editor has editorial control over all content published on Factcheck.bg. The journalists conduct the fact checks and write the articles which are edited by the editor before appearing on the site. Decisions about which claims to check, how they are checked and how the fact checks are written are made jointly by the journalists and the editor.
The Project Manager is responsible for the financial, legal and technical sustainability of the project. She also leads the long-term strategy of Factcheck.bg. The Partnerships Coordinator is responsible for the project's external relations with donors and partner organizations. The Database Consultant supports the team in their technology- and data-related investigations. The Social Media Manager helps promote published fact checks and the broader mission of Factcheck.bg.
Sources:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/team/
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/team/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1. E
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
A special section on the website of Factcheck.bg includes the full names and short professional biographies not only of the key editors and decision makers but of all members of the editorial team. The biographies include a brief mention of any relevant previous professional roles of the people in the team.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/team/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.1.F envisages transparency of staff, involved in the fact-checking operation’s editorial output, including any relevant previous roles.
On the page "Team" all members of the editorial team are presented.
On the page "Team" all members of the editorial team are presented.
Ralitsa Kovacheva – Editor-in-Chief - is a doctor of journalism and a lecturer in international journalism at the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communication at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski ”. She has published three books and numerous scientific articles. Her research interests are in the European Union, international politics and disinformation. Ralitsa Kovacheva has many years of journalistic experience. She has worked as a journalist at BNT, FM Plus radio, published in various online media and is one of the founders of RE:TV and BiT.
Georgy Marchev - Deputy – Editor-in-Chief - is a founder, video producer and narrator at Story Films. He is experienced in creating video stories on the Internet, and the national tv channels bTV and Nova. He started from the newspaper and online news journalism - Dnevnik newspaper, Dnevnik.bg website and Capital Daily newspaper. He graduated in journalism and production at the University of National and World Economy. Part of the author's team of the text entitled "From the Istanbul Convention to the fraud k0vid-19", awarded first place in the hackathon "Health on target" of the Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria.
The team includes audio-visual editor, Database Consultant, Social Media Manager and four journalists. All of them are presented in detail.
Source:
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/team/
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/team/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1. F
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 12/12/2023
There is easily accessible information on the website about the full names and short professional biographies of all members of the staff involved in the editorial output of the fact-checking operation.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art.4.1.G requires statement setting out the operation’s mission, values and internal guidelines in place to protect its independence.
Factcheck.bg has published information on its mission, values and standards [1].
According to the page "Mission" The mission of Factcheck.bg is to counter the increasing pollution of Bulgaria’s media environment by disinformation and misinformation. Democratic societies need information with integrity for their citizens to make informed decisions. By checking facts according to the highest standards of professional journalism on topics of the greatest social impact, Factcheck.bg aims to help Bulgarian citizens make their own informed choices on pressing issues such as the elections of their political leaders, public health during a global pandemic and upholding Bulgaria's human rights obligations.
Factcheck.bg supports the efforts of Bulgarian journalists to provide media consumers with quality information by checking claims made in social media, traditional media, public statements by officials and elsewhere. By providing verified reliable information on topics which are frequent targets of disinformation campaigns, Factcheck.bg also helps inform more broadly Bulgarian citizens interested in news and public affairs and those seeking answers to other questions of social significance.
More about principles and protection of editorial independence could be seen on page ""How we work."[2]
Source
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/mission/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1. G
Factcheck.bg has published information on its mission, values and standards [1].
According to the page "Mission" The mission of Factcheck.bg is to counter the increasing pollution of Bulgaria’s media environment by disinformation and misinformation. Democratic societies need information with integrity for their citizens to make informed decisions. By checking facts according to the highest standards of professional journalism on topics of the greatest social impact, Factcheck.bg aims to help Bulgarian citizens make their own informed choices on pressing issues such as the elections of their political leaders, public health during a global pandemic and upholding Bulgaria's human rights obligations.
Factcheck.bg supports the efforts of Bulgarian journalists to provide media consumers with quality information by checking claims made in social media, traditional media, public statements by officials and elsewhere. By providing verified reliable information on topics which are frequent targets of disinformation campaigns, Factcheck.bg also helps inform more broadly Bulgarian citizens interested in news and public affairs and those seeking answers to other questions of social significance.
More about principles and protection of editorial independence could be seen on page ""How we work."[2]
Source
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/mission/
[2] https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1. G
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 13/12/2023
There is a special section on the website including the mission statement the of the fact-checking operation.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/work-principles/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art 4.1 H requires all bylaws that govern the members' behavior to be available and easily accessible.
According to the provided information by fact-check operation, the editorial team respects work principles, available and easily accessible on the website. [1]
In addition Ethic Code of Bulgarian Media [2] and Ethic Standards of AEJ - Bulgaria [3] should be mentioned.
Sources:
[1] Principles
https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] Ethic Code of Bulgarian Media
https://www.mediacenterbg.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ethical-code-bg-final.pdf
[3] Ethic Standards of AEJ - Bulgaria
https://aej-bulgaria.org/code-of-conduct/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1. Н
According to the provided information by fact-check operation, the editorial team respects work principles, available and easily accessible on the website. [1]
In addition Ethic Code of Bulgarian Media [2] and Ethic Standards of AEJ - Bulgaria [3] should be mentioned.
Sources:
[1] Principles
https://factcheck.bg/en/work-principles/
[2] Ethic Code of Bulgarian Media
https://www.mediacenterbg.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ethical-code-bg-final.pdf
[3] Ethic Standards of AEJ - Bulgaria
https://aej-bulgaria.org/code-of-conduct/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.1. Н
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 13/12/2023
There is a special section on the website of the fact-checking operation explaining the bylaws of Factcheck.bg, its internal rules and statutes.
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:
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.2.A. requires operations to 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; this does not need to be publicly disclosed and will be under confidentiality.
All income sources that have amounted to more than 1% of Factcheck’s annual income from the most recent annual accounts are presented.
On the website the funders are presented as follows:
"Our funders play no role in our fact-checking process. Staffed by independent media professionals, Factcheck.bg has no personal or institutional relations with any individuals, institutions or political entities covered in Bulgaria or other countries. Please read here about our editorial independence.
Small Grants Program of the U.S. Embassy Factcheck.bg received support from the U.S. Embassy Sofia Small Grants Program for fact-checking trainings for journalists, students and activists from January - November 2021. The support also covered the organization of a fact-checking competition on the topic: “Human Rights as a Target of Disinformation Campaigns.” The U.S. Embassy plays no role in any of these activities – editorial, supervisory or otherwise – and they are entirely managed and implemented by Factcheck.bg.
European Parliament contract From May - September 2021, Factcheck.bg implemented the project "DetecDisinfoNet" with funding provided by the European Parliament. The objective was to fund the production and publication of fact-checking on European-wide topics including the pandemic, energy, human rights and foreign policy. All the fact checks published under this grant are clearly marked as such and the European Parliament played no role beyond funding. The editor of Factcheck.bg examines every story assignment for potential conflicts of interest and takes full responsibility for the choice of topics and how they are fact-checked. From December 2021 to July 2022, Factcheck.bg again received financing from the European Parliament for another project whose objective is to build and grow the fact-checking community.
Active Citizens Fund In October 2021 Factcheck.bg started a new project to cultivate a community of scientist fact-checkers and collaborate with Factcheck.bg and its team of journalists. The project is supported by the Active Citizens Fund [ACF] in Bulgaria. Funded by donors Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism and administered by the Open Society Institute - Sofia, the goal of the ACF is to foster civil society development. The grant includes developing a methodology for scientific fact-checking; setting up a system to coordinate fact-checking collaborations between scientists and journalists; fact-checking training for scientists; and the production of fact checks to be published on the site. The project ends in October 2023.
NATO Public Diplomacy Programme Factcheck.bg received funding from the NATO Public Diplomacy Programme to produce 6 fact checks and 4 short videos for the site from October 1 - December 31 2021. The funding is dedicated to supporting fact-checking in NATO member states generally and NATO exercises no influence over the choice of claims to check nor the way in which they are verified. All published reports supported under the program will be clearly marked as such.
Countering Disinformation Innovation Fund, U.S. Department of State The project “Boosting the factchecking capacity of Factcheck.bg” is funded by Counter State Disinformation Innovation Fund and consists of the production of at least 18 actual factchecks on political statements and other disinformation narratives and campaigns in the social and traditional media. The project’s objectives are to increase the speed and depth of fact-checking coverage of critical events in Bulgarian and around the world, such as the war in Ukraine. An additional objective is to create a more trustworthy, robust media environment by providing free and much-needed content on timely issues to Bulgaria’s beleaguered independent media who have limited resources to research and respond to disinformation. The project’s period is 1 October 2022- 31 March 2023.
Detect and Check Disinformation, U.S. Department of State The project “Boosting the fact checking community in Bulgaria” is implemented in partnership with Poynter institute for media studies and consists of three main activities. In the first the partners developed a fact-checking program and guide designed to equip Bulgarian national and regional journalists and journalism students with the skills to identify disinformation in Bulgaria and to develop effective fact-checking measures to counter it. The next element consists of training 12 fact-checkers from Factcheck.bg and other media to become professional fact-checking trainers. The third element is the fact-checking academy which has two sessions - summer and autumn, to train 100 regional journalists and journalism students.
European Media and Information Fund The project “Combat disinformation in a sustainable way - COMDISWAY” is implemented with the financial support of the European Media and Information Fund, managed by Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. The sole responsibility of the content lies with Factcheck.bg and does not necessarily reflect the positions of EMIF and the Fund Partners, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
The project aims to develop a systematic and sustainable strategy to tackle the disinformation in Bulgaria related to critical events. The project rationale is to fight the disinformation with a model that involves prebunking, debunking and updates on the most sensitive topics which, based on our experience, will be part once again of the disinformation landscape.
The project’ team will search for disinformation in two ways - in the isolated Bulgarian Facebook groups and through international partnerships (the IFCN, Science+) and other fact-checking platforms (EDMO, EU vs Disinfo). This way, the project will be able to address both local disinformation discourses and major narratives popular in Central and Eastern European countries.
For the articles on disinformation about the war in Ukraine and its broader context,Factcheck.bg will continue to translate these articles into Ukrainian and to increase their reach via a partnership with the Ukrainian fact-checker StopFake. StopFake.org will republish Factcheck.bg articles in Ukrainian. It will also provide the team with consultation on Ukrainian topics throughout the whole project cycle.
The project’ team will search for disinformation in two ways - in the isolated Bulgarian Facebook groups and through international partnerships (the IFCN, Science+) and other fact-checking platforms (EDMO, EU vs Disinfo). This way, the project will be able to address both local disinformation discourses and major narratives popular in Central and Eastern European countries.
For the articles on disinformation about the war in Ukraine and its broader context,Factcheck.bg will continue to translate these articles into Ukrainian and to increase their reach via a partnership with the Ukrainian fact-checker StopFake. StopFake.org will republish Factcheck.bg articles in Ukrainian. It will also provide the team with consultation on Ukrainian topics throughout the whole project cycle.
Google partnership The Association of European Journalists - Bulgaria (AEJ) and Google have launched a new partnership as a joint effort to promote media literacy and counter disinformation in Bulgaria. Google’s funding will allow for the scale and reach of Factcheck.bg to grow, which will enable AEJ to enlarge its team, establish at least 5 new partnerships with media outlets and double their online audience (website views and social media followers). At least 96 fact-checks will be made on various actual topics in the framework of the project. The project period is July 2023 - July 2024.
Sources:
[1] information, provided by Factcheck.bg
[2] https://factcheck.bg/en/transparency-of-funding/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in 4.2.A concerning transparency of funding, including overall annual income of the organization and main sources of income.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 13/12/2023
There is a special section on the website of Factcheck.bg disclosing the funding of the fact-checking operation. All of the eight sources of income attached here are also listed in the public section with a short summary of the purpose of each project, without indicating the amount of the funding.
Obviously, most of the funding for Factcheck.bg comes from the governments of Western democracies and international organizations/bodies – USA, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, European Parliament, European Commission, NATO. These countries and organizations are among the major donors/sponsors of the civil society in Bulgaria. One of the sponsors of Factcheck.bg is a Portuguese media foundation and only one is a private company – Google. In Bulgaria there is a very low level of donations by citizens for civil society organizations and therefore many of them are funded either by Western governments/non-profit donors, or by Bulgarian private companies.
I cannot comment on the question whether any of the sources of funding of Factcheck.bg could be considered a conflict of interest as long as this is a fundamental issue, which could not be addressed here. At the same time, the fact-checking operation is fully transparent with its audience about the sources of funding. Not only that they are listed in a special section of the website, but all of the fact-checking publications in the randomized sample of my assessment end with a note about the name of the particular source of funding for the specific publication and sometimes - the title of project. Factcheck.bg has repeatedly stated that it receives funding under the condition that there is no interference of the donor in the editorial content.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Factcheck.bg is a platform supported by two legal entities: the NGO Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria and the company AEJ LTD. Factcheck.bg was started by the company AEJ LTD with the funding provided by the EP under the form of subcontract, not a grant, that is why we needed a private entity to operate the funding. AEJ LTD is entirely and solely dedicated to Factcheck.bg, while AEJ-Bulgaria has diverse activities in support of the journalists in Bulgaria and implement different project on different topics outside fact-checking. We have noted in the funding description which entity is responsible for each funding.
AEJ LTD is a private company and doesn't have the obligation to disclose its annual funding publicly on the website.
For the last two years AEJ LTD annual income is the following:
2021 - 130 000 BGN
AEJ LTD is a private company and doesn't have the obligation to disclose its annual funding publicly on the website.
For the last two years AEJ LTD annual income is the following:
2021 - 130 000 BGN
2022 - 141 000 BGN
The NGO AEJ-Bulgaria has the obligation to publicly disclose its annual income on the website: https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%be%d1%82%d1%87%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8/
The NGO AEJ-Bulgaria has the obligation to publicly disclose its annual income on the website: https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%be%d1%82%d1%87%d0%b5%d1%82%d0%b8/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 11/12/2023
Art.4.2.B requires transparency of funding, including overall annual income of the organization and main sources of income.
a) According to the information provided by Factcheck.bg, for the last two years annual income dedicated to Factcheck.bg is the following:
2021 - 130 000 BGN
2022 - 141 000 BGN
b) According to the information provided by Factcheck.bg, the operation is a platform supported by two legal entities: the NGO Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria and the company AEJ LTD.
b) According to the information provided by Factcheck.bg, the operation is a platform supported by two legal entities: the NGO Association of European Journalists-Bulgaria and the company AEJ LTD.
For reasons related to accounting requirements and rules, in connection with receiving funding provided by the European Parliament, under the form of subcontract, not a grant, it was necessary a separate legal entity to be created - as a private entity with the aim to operate the funding - AEJ LTD.
AEJ-Bulgaria has various activities in support of the journalists in Bulgaria and implement different projects on different topics outside fact-checking, while AEJ LTD is entirely and solely dedicated to Factcheck.bg.
Factcheck.bg noted in the funding description which entity is responsible for each funding.
According to the information provided, AEJ LTD was founded only to fulfill accounting requirements for a separate accounting, it is a private company and doesn't have the obligation to disclose its annual funding publicly on the website.
The NGO AEJ-Bulgaria has the obligation to publicly disclose its annual income on the website:
https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%be%d1%82%d1%87%d0%b5%d1%82%d0 %b8/
https://aej-bulgaria.org/%d0%be%d1%82%d1%87%d0%b5%d1%82%d0 %b8/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in 4.2.B concerning transparency of funding, including overall annual income of the organization and main sources of income.
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
The parent organization of Factcheck.bg – “Association of European Journalists – Bulgaria”, discloses on its website its annual financial reports, which are also submitted to the Official Commercial Register of Bulgaria. The reports contain detailed information about the overall annual income of AEJ-Bulgaria. It is a very good practice that in 2022 AEJ published not only a financial report, but also an activity report, which listed all the projects, activities, partnerships and achievements of the organization and gave much more information about the overall direction of the activities of AEJ. I think that this effort should proceed, as far as the financial reports present only numbers and do not list the names of the funders, partners, projects and other important details.
As to the micro Ltd. company – AEJ Ltd., which was established in 2021 for a project with the European Parliament, there is no financial information about it on the website of Factcheck.bg. However, its financial statements and other documents are disclosed in the Official Commercial Register of Bulgaria, which is open to the public and is accessible online.
Factcheck.bg discloses on its website the names of the sources of funding of its activities (mostly public funders and one online platform) with a short description of scope of the projects. It does not disclose the amounts of funding and there is no separate financial report only about the annual income of Factcheck.bg, as far as it is operated by the non-profit “AEJ-Bulgaria” and the micro-company “AEJ” Ltd.
My impression is that the websites of “AEJ-Bulgaria” and Factcheck.bg together give comprehensive information about the funding of the organization and its fact-checking operation. However, it could probably be a good idea if Factcheck.bg adds a link to the financial and activity reports on the website of “AEJ-Bulgaria”, so that readers could very easily access the documents. As to the “AEJ” Ltd., the name of the company could be mentioned in the paragraphs about the projects, which are operated by it. Its financial reports could also be published on the website of “AEJ – Bulgaria” although they are available in the Official Register.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
https://factcheck.bg/transparency-of-funding/
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art 4.2.C requires information on mechanisms and measures aimed at protection of independence in context of funding and possible conflicts of interest.
a) with regard to media, platforms and other commercial entities - on the website is explicitly emphasized that "Factcheck.bg exercises strict editorial independence when fulfilling the terms of all contracts."
b) with regard to European Union, the contracts with the European Union include the right of the operation not to consider either the information or the results of scientific research with the possible opinion of the funding agency.
Sources
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/transparency-of-funding/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. C
a) with regard to media, platforms and other commercial entities - on the website is explicitly emphasized that "Factcheck.bg exercises strict editorial independence when fulfilling the terms of all contracts."
b) with regard to European Union, the contracts with the European Union include the right of the operation not to consider either the information or the results of scientific research with the possible opinion of the funding agency.
Sources
[1] https://factcheck.bg/en/transparency-of-funding/
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. C
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
Factcheck.bg declares that donors do not interfere in any way in the editorial process or in the content of the publications. There is a short description of the nature of the work funded by each of the donors, which are mostly public institutions outside Bulgaria. I have not found information on the website about any specific mechanism to protect editorial independence with regard to a certain project or income source. However, the protections are covered in general non-partisanship policies of Factcheck.bg.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Not applicable, we don't have such.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.2.D envisages transparency of unpaid significant commitments.
This operation declares, that it does not have unpaid significant commitments and the established mechanisms at work do not allow such a hypothesis.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. D
This operation declares, that it does not have unpaid significant commitments and the established mechanisms at work do not allow such a hypothesis.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. D
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
The fact-checking operation does not provide such information because it says that it does not have such commitments.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
Not applicable for Factcheck.bg
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.2.E requires transparency of sponsorship and sponsored content.
Factcheck.bg does not publish sponsored content.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. E
Factcheck.bg does not publish sponsored content.
Conclusion: Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. E
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
I have not found any advertising or any examples of sponsored content on the website of Factcheck.bg.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
FActcheck.bg has only partnership on content and expertise, as well as media partnerships.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.2.F requires transparency of 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).
Factcheck.bg does not have services or goods in this category, according to the attached information. Factcheck.bg has only partnership on content and expertise, as well as media partnerships.
Conclusion Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. F
Factcheck.bg does not have services or goods in this category, according to the attached information. Factcheck.bg has only partnership on content and expertise, as well as media partnerships.
Conclusion Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. F
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
I have not found such information on the website since the applicant claims that it does not have partnerships that fulfil this requirement.
Applicant
Date: 01/08/2023
FActcheck.bg has only partnership on content and expertise, as well as media partnerships.
Nelly Ognyanova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 03/12/2023
Art. 4.2.F requires transparency of 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).
Factcheck.bg does not have services or goods in this category, according to the attached information. Factcheck.bg has only partnership on content and expertise, as well as media partnerships.
Conclusion Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. F
Factcheck.bg does not have services or goods in this category, according to the attached information. Factcheck.bg has only partnership on content and expertise, as well as media partnerships.
Conclusion Factcheck.bg meets the criteria in the Chapter 4.2. F
Tsvetelina Sokolova (assessor)
Compliant
Date: 14/12/2023
I have not found such information on the website since the applicant claims that it does not have partnerships that fulfil this requirement.
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: 01/08/2023