European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN)

VERIFIED MEMBERS

Membership in the EFCSN signifies an organisation’s rigorous commitment to provide accurate information ethically and transparently, without bias or prejudice and focus on matters in the public interest as well as a proven track record of excellence, integrity and accountability as definied in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations.

← Return to organization page

FactCheck Georgia

Website

https://www.factcheck.ge/ka?

Date

31/08/2024

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

As of now, twenty-three people work for the operation, out of which sixteen represent fact-checkers, who specialize in different fields, such as journalism, economics, law and judiciary, international relations, public policy and good governance, etc. The rest of them includes managerial and administrative staff members, such as editor(s), the project coordinator, the financial manager, the social media manager, and so on. We regularly offer internships and volunteer opportunities to young professionals.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

The number of team members are different in GEO, ENG and RUS versions. It would be great if the provided information will be the same for all the versions. For example, the page about team members in Georgian (გუნდი (factcheck.ge)) shows 23 team members, the ENG version shows 21 team members, and the RUS version shows only 18 team members.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 01/08/2023

The number of team members is updated. There are 21 team members on display in RUS, GEO and ENG versions.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/08/2023

The number of team members is the same is RUS, GEO and END versions.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Apart from fact-checking which is a primary work of FactCheck Georgia, the operation contributes to increasing media literacy skills in Georgia.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

There is nothing mentioned in About us (О Нас) section that the platform team also provide/support media literacy. Better to have a sentence about it in this section of the website.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2023

Thank you. We have added a notice on our media literacy activities in “about us” section, which reads as following in English and Russian:

In addition, FactCheck aims to increase media literacy in the public and, to this end, conducts various activities, including online media literacy campaigns, training for school teachers and students, and advocating with various state and non-state organizations on media literacy issues, etc.

Кроме того, "FactCheck" нацелен на повышение медиаграмотности в обществе и проводит различные мероприятия в этой связи, включая кампании по повышению медиаграмотности в социальных сетях, обучение учителей и учеников, адвокатирование с различными государственными и негосударственными организациями по вопросам медиаграмотности, и т.д.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/08/2023

Now it's clear and compliant.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

FactCheck’s main objectives are as follows: (1) providing precise, accurate, and evidence-based information to readers; (2) increasing the accountability and responsibility of politicians to their constituencies; (3) promoting the development of fact-based political rhetoric; (4) Verification of disinformation disseminated in social networks and on the internet and providing accurate information to readers. To this end, FactCheck’s team monitors MPs, the president, government officials, and other public figures and highlights the factual accuracies and inaccuracies in their statements. In terms of fighting against dis/misinformation and online hoaxes, FactCheck Georgia team monitors social media platforms as well as different online media outlets on a daily basis.

Over the coming year, FactCheck will continue its regular work, which includes fact-checking parliamentary sessions, political talk shows, and claims made by government officials and opposition political forces both at national and municipal levels. In addition, the program will work towards increasing awareness of the voters in political processes before the upcoming 2024 parliamentary elections. We will provide the public with up-to-date information on salient public policy issues covering not only the claims of politicians but also analyzing the most significant political decisions, economic, social, healthcare, legislative initiatives, party programs and promises, etc.

Debunking fake news and online hoaxes will remain to be another central dimension of the program. To this end, we will continue to monitor relevant social and traditional media platforms, as well as individual accounts to expose their malign activities and reduce the spread of misinformation or otherwise misleading information. In this sense, the following topics will be a priority for the FactCheck Georgia's debunking team: the war in Ukraine, health-related misinformation, as well as domestic public policy issues.

FactCheck Georgia will also continue to engage fact-checkers in ethnic minority-populated regions of Samtskhe-Javakheti and Kvemo Kartli as well as two other regions, such as Adjara and Gori, to analyze the issues of local importance. As our work demonstrated for the past two years, local communities in these regions are very responsive to our findings, and sustaining these efforts will contribute to further improving our level of outreach and engagement as well as increased resilience towards disinformation.

In terms of content, we will complement our investigative and fact-checking materials with multimedia storytelling to widen the audience and contribute to equipping the public with the proper knowledge and digital information skills. Besides written articles, we will apply user-friendly and creative forms of reporting, such as video clips, data visuals, infographics, and posters, which will serve to diversify our content more and build a better connection with our audience. Also, in terms of outreach, we will launch and increase our presence on new social media platforms, such as Instagram, WhatsApp and TikTok. Our articles will be published primarily in Georgian and Russian languages, with some selected materials also translated into English for foreign audiences and in Armenian and Azerbaijani languages for the national minorities in Georgia. Also, FactCheck Georgia plans to increase fact-checking in the Armenian language. In addition, the partnership will be strengthened or established with relevant nationwide and regional media outlets to share or refer to the program content for wider dissemination. FactCheck Georgia will continue publishing its fact-checks on a weekly basis in English language newspaper “The Financial”.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The operation plan for the year is clear. However, concrete KPIs are missing. It's not a big issue.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Since 2013, FactCheck Georgia primarily focuses on Georgia and has so far published more than 4 thousand fact-checks. All articles can be accessed through this link – Georgian - https://factcheck.ge/ka/stories/archive.

FactCheck Georgia tries to outreach ethnic Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in Georgia, where a lack of knowledge in the Georgian language, as well as a low quality of media content, make them even more vulnerable to political manipulation and disinformation. These communities amount to around 11% of the local population. Therefore, part of our articles is from time to time translated into Armenian and Azerbaijani languages. This year, we plan to increase original reporting and fact-checking in the Armenian language.

Back in 2021, in the context of no local IFCN verified organization in Armenia, Meta contacted GRASS/FactCheck Georgia to expand the cooperation over fact-checking Armenian content on the platform for the two-month period for the parliamentary elections in Armenia. Therefore, in 2021 we were covering Armenia as a country within Meta’s 3PFC program.

Since February 2024, we have increased our Russian language edition and fact-checks are originally published in the Russian language concerning Russia’s war in Ukraine daily. Through this work, we are monitoring and debunking Russian language content from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine are full members of CoE. The platform covers news regarding Russia and Belarus too. However, there is a typo in the answer. Most likely, the increase of the RUS language content has started since FEB of 2022, after the large-scale war initiated by Russia over the Ukraine.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 02/08/2023

Thank you, there is a typo. We have increased the production of Russian language content since 24 February 2022.

Applicant

Date: 28/02/2023

Download File

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The shared links in RUS are working. The fact-checks are in compliance with the methodology.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

Important notion: only this link is broken: https://factcheck.ge/ru/story/41507
The publication Дезинформация: На украинском флаге, который Зеленский передал американским конгрессменам изображена нацистская символика is not available on website. Most likely it has been deleted.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 01/08/2023

https://factcheck.ge/ru/story/41507 - there was a technical problem on the website. The article is accessible now.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 15/05/2023

Although the organization submitted a list of four publications per month, Factcheck.ge has a lot more active website, especially in the Georgian language. For example, for the month of April 2023, I counted 34 fact-checks.

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: 06/02/2023

FactCheck Georgia's publishes a thorough methodology (https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb/მეთოდოლოგია) detailing its working principles and practice. The methodology explains the whole working routine of the program as regards the following: how do we identify facts for verification; what kind of topics are given priorities for analysis; how do we collect data; how verdicts are issued, etc.

It is of uttermost importance for FactCheck’s team to correctly select and prioritise statements for verification. There are a few indicators given bellow based upon which statements for verification are selected (it is only natural that one statement cannot meet all the indicators; however, FactCheck’s team tries to make sure that most of the criteria are met whilst selecting the topics).

1. In the selection phase, the first question is as follows: “Is a particular statement verifiable or not?” Ideologies are not verified; in most cases, future forecasts are also not verified together with such topics whose verification exceeds our ability (for instance, information containing state secrets, personal data, etc.).

2. Public Interest – It is important to define how interesting a particular topic is for the public and whether or not is it a worthy one to spend the analysts’ time and resources.

3. Given the aforementioned principle, the individual author of a statement is of less importance for FactCheck’s team. Statements are not selected on the basis of how recognisable their authors are. All of those facts and topics which belong to the sphere of public interest is important for our team. However, attention is given to verifying claims made by the Prime-Minister, the President, Speaker of the Parliament as well as leaders from the ruling party(s), as their statements have a direct impact on people’s lives.

4. Controversial Topics – FactCheck seeks to verify such statements which have spurred different opinions in the public and for which there is no straightforward conclusion.

5. In addition, topics which raise a natural question – is this really true? – in the public are also verified. This is particularly evident when a new and previously unknown fact goes public.

6. Our team aims to verify such statements which are actively discussed in the social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).

7. There are issues which constantly attract the attention of the audience. In accordance with public opinion polls, as well as based on our team’s experience, for Georgia these issues are as follows: jobs, poverty, occupied territories, education, human rights, social assistance, bureaucratic expenses, independence of judiciary, foreign policy, etc.

8. Those statements which contain statistical data attract particular attention. It is always important and interesting to verify them.

9. FactCheck pays particular attention to the verification of such false facts and disinformation that may pose a danger to human health and lives and harm the democratic process, including people’s faith in elections which deliberately damages the constitutionally guaranteed Euro-Atlantic and European integration process.

10. Keeping the balance – Although FactCheck’s analysts select statements for verification based on facts given in the statements, it can happen frequently that we find numerous statements of one party/politician whilst none can be found on other party/politician. Naturally, here we are not to blame; however, we still try to equally cover all the parties/politicians and make sure that articles dedicated to their statements are somehow equal as well. This approach is particularly important during the election campaign period.

11. Whilst selecting a statement to verify, FactCheck’s editor-in-chief and analyst provide the exact definition of what we try to verify. For instance, let us take a politician’s statement: “Fuel expenses at Tbilisi City Hall have increased eightfold whilst furniture expenses doubled. Salaries and bonuses of the bureaucracy are also increased. This is wasted money.” This statement contains several components and quotes for verification which should be distinguished from one another. For instance, do we verify all three statements together and write one article or do we write three separate articles? In addition, we ask question whether or not we can verify the last phrase – “This is wasted money” or shall we consider it as a politician’s private judgment? Therefore, work on an article starts when we know precisely where we try to find the truth.

In addition to this, with its regional representations, FactCheck.ge publishes articles on issues of local importance in different regions and rural areas, such as Adjara, Shida Kartli, Imereti, as well as regions with ethnic minority population such as Kvemo Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti, etc.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

FactCheck Georgia mostly publishes fact-checks about topics that are in the general public interest. Also verified claims are touching the welfare of society, public health, international, national and regional politics and individuals involved in geopolitics. There are several publications where the focus is on the local minorities living in the regions of Georgia.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

FactCheck serves the public interest by employing a detailed methodology to verify various public statements. This process prioritizes verifiable claims, public relevance, balanced coverage, and objective facts over author identity or subjective opinions. Special focus is given to influential figures, contentious topics, and frequently discussed issues, with a commitment to debunking harmful misinformation. Through this approach, the organization provides the public with a reliable source of information and contributes to the health of the information environment.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Check your Fact in Georgian - https://factcheck.ge/ka/check-your-fact

Check your fact in Russian - https://factcheck.ge/ru/check-your-fact

Check your fact in English - https://factcheck.ge/en/check-your-fact

Readers are also encouraged to send their claims through FactCheck's Facebook page.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

FactCheck Georgia encourages the readers to submit their claims and concerns. The button "Проверь свой факт" is visible and easily accessible from any pages of the website. One can submit a claim when reading an article or from the main home page. Readers can also reach out to the editorial board via Facebook page of the platform.
When being on the special page: "Проверь свой факт", one can understand what to expect, what will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

Check your fact button is easily accessible and the explanation is provided: "FactCheck does not verify opinion or future promises. We investigate specific facts. If we check the statements provided by you, FactCheck will publish your name, surname, and photo in the article, if that is your wish. The activities of the FactCheck are based on in-depth research that requires time for collecting, requesting, and analyzing information."

Best Practices:

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

Article 3.1: Non-Partisanship and Impartiality

In order to be recognised as a verified member of the European Fact-checking Standards Network (EFCSN), operations must:

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Impartiality and independence are guiding principles for FactCheck Georgia. To protect these principles, both FactCheck Georgia and its parent organization Georgia’s Reforms Associates are equipped with different mechanisms that ensure the effective implementation of the organisation’s impartiality and independence policy. This is accessible on the following link:

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The Editorial Code (Редакционный кодекс (factcheck.ge)) of the applicant illustrates that FactCheck Georgia is editorially free and politically independent. About impartiality and independence the platform announces also in the section About us.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

Considering the provided links in the application, which include a publicly accessible policy, charter, or other mechanism ensuring editorial independence, along with the applicant's adherence to the non-partisanship standards outlined in the About US section, and their overall organizational structure, policies, staffing, agreements, funding, and fact-checking practices, it is clear that the applicant meets this standard.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

A rule - not to endorse or advice the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office - is part of FactCheck Georgia’s independence and impartiality policy as well as code of conduct of fact-checkers. These are publicly accessible on “about us” section of FactCheck’s webpage.

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Code of Conduct GEO - https://bit.ly/3Zr8NwZ
Code of Conduct RUS - https://bit.ly/3EIIoTq
Code of Conduct ENG - https://bit.ly/3mbkABg

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The Editorial Code and the section "About us" ensure that the applicant does not endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office. There is no evidence of incompliance with the policy available publicly about the applicant.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

As part of FactCheck Georgia's commitment to independence and impartiality, as well as its code of conduct, there is a policy against endorsing or recommending any political parties or candidates for public office. This information is available in the "about us" section of the FactCheck website. In addition, the review of fact-checks and GRASS website show that there's no proof to suggest that the fact-checking organization or its parent body has publicly backed a political candidate.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

A rule - Not to 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 - is part of FactCheck Georgia’s independence and impartiality policy. This is publicly accessible on “about us” section of FactCheck’s webpage.

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

Based on the open sources, analyzes and documents shared with the assessor and publicly, the applicant does 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.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

FactCheck Georgia maintains a policy of not entering into any agreements or partnerships with political parties or engaging in any public relations activities that could undermine its reputation for independence and impartiality. This rule can be found publicly in the "about us" section of the FactCheck website and a review of the partnerships of the organization supports the declared principle.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

This policy is outlined in the methodology page of FactCheck Georgia - https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb/%E1%83%9B%E1%83%94%E1%83%97%E1%83%9D%E1%83%93%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%92%E1%83%98%E1%83%90

FactCheck’s analysts select statements for verification based on facts given in the statements, however, it can happen frequently that we find numerous statements of one party/politician whilst none can be found on other party/politician. Naturally, here we are not to blame; however, we still try to equally cover all the parties/politicians and make sure that articles dedicated to their statements are somehow equal as well. This approach is particularly important during the election campaign period.

Here is the list of articles from last year, showcasing that FactCheck.ge covers all major political parties – the ruling party and opposition parties. Their statements are rated with all verdicts: from False to True. As the below-listed articles demonstrate, no matter who says, FactCheck.ge assesses the claims against facts and available data.

The emigration issue is one of the debated topics in Georgian politics. FactCheck.ge checked the veracity of the claims from different political groups.

1. Georgian Dream MP, Archil Talkvadze: “The only positive difference [migration balance] in the migration statistics was recorded during the "Georgian Dream" government”. Verdict: Manipulation. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41186

2. Political Party “Strategy Aghmashenebeli”, Teona Chalidze – “During the last year, 100 thousand people left the country”. Verdict: Manipulation. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41091

3. A member of parliamentary majority, Dimitri Khundadze – “Georgian citizens left the country most times in 2009, 2010 and 2011”. Verdict: Lie. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/40791

4. Political Party “For Georgia”, Shalva Kereselidze – “100 thousands of young people leave Georgia every year”. Verdict: Manipulation. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41364

Yet another important public policy issue is the level of unemployment and politicians frequently make statements in this regard. FactCheck Georgia has fact-checked similar claims from different political parties:

5. Prime minister Irakli Gharibashvili: “More than 100,000 new jobs have been created and unemployment is at a historic low”. Verdict: Mostly True. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41430

6. The first deputy chairman of the sectoral economy and economic policy committee, Eka Sepashvili: „In the second quarter of 2022, unemployment decreased by 4%. About 36 thousand people were employed and the number of self-employed people also increased”. Verdict: Mostly True. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41225

7. MP from political party “Lelo”, Ana Natsvlishvili: “The unemployment rate in Georgia is at a historical maximum”. Verdict: Lie. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/40822

Yet another controversial issue that politicians often talk about is Georgia’s dependence on Russia’s energy.

8. Chairman of the National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission (SEMEK), Davit Narmania: “We are not dependent on Russia for energy”. Verdict: True. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41144

9. MP from “Lelo”, Salome Samadashvili: “Maybe we will hear an explanation of how "Georgian Dream" managed to increase its dependence on Russia in the field of energy”. Verdict: False. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/40581

On inflation:

10. The chairperson of the ruling Georgian Dream party, Irakli Kobakhidze: ““Inflation was nearly 10% over the course of this year which is a much lower figure as compared to other countries around us and in Europe, generally. In this light, a 10% inflation rate is ‘normal’ but not a relief for the population, since inflation on”. Verdict: True. https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41495

11. United National Movement MP, Roman Gotsiridze: “It has been two years that we have a double-digit inflation. Last year, it was 15%, this year it was 10% and prices in a two-year period increased by 25-30% whilst prices on some staple goods, food and medication increased most sharply”. Verdict: Mostly True. https://factcheck.ge/en/story/41171

We sometimes prepare “VS articles”, where the statements from politicians on the same issue aired simultaneously are fact-checked. See the example here - https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41570

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

Publications by FactCheck Georgia do not satisfy any political parties in Georgia. The statement comes with the idea that it plays mainly a role of a watchdog in society ensuring it does not have a specific focus on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

FactCheck Georgia's methodology explicitly outlines commitment to impartiality, ensuring no political party is unduly targeted in their investigations. This commitment is substantiated in their fact-check samples, demonstrating a balanced treatment of all parties. Should be noted that their pursuit of the balance does not yield 'false equivalence', thus preserving the credibility of their evaluation process.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

A rule - Not to 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 - is part of FactCheck Georgia’s independence and impartiality policy. This is publicly accessible on “about us” section of FactCheck’s webpage. In addition, charter of the parent organization also excludes a possibility to be board and staff member of GRASS if one holds a position in a political party. Link to the Charter is also available in the “about us” section.

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

According to FactCheck Georgia’s independence and impartiality policy, 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, has no chance to work at FactCheck Georgia. Personal investigation done by the assessor on this issue confirms that the applicant follows the policy.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

FactCheck Georgia follows a policy that prohibits hiring anyone who has a paid or significant role in a political party, government, or public company directly controlled by a political party or government. This rule, which is part of their commitment to independence and impartiality, can be publicly accessed in the "about us" section of the FactCheck website. Moreover, the parent organization's charter also disallows anyone from being a board or staff member of GRASS if they hold a position in a political party. This charter is also linked in the "about us" section.
The director of the parent organization, GRASS, is a former diplomat and the Board includes individuals with prior political experience. However, the editorial policy and adherence to fact-checking principles of FactCheck Georgia are under the purview of FactCheck's Editorial Board. This board operates independently, overseeing aspects such as monitoring, topic selection, article publication, and the policy for corrections, separate from the influence of GRASS Board and Director.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

FactCheck’s independence and impartiality policy as well as code of conduct (also available in “About us” section) bars employees from making partisan statements in the name of the operation. Organizational Regulations include disciplinary measures, including dismissal if these policies are broken by employees.

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Code of Conduct GEO - https://bit.ly/3Zr8NwZ
Code of Conduct RUS - https://bit.ly/3EIIoTq
Code of Conduct ENG - https://bit.ly/3mbkABg

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The applicant has documented procedure of barring employees from making partisan statements in the name of the operation or organisation. It has been presented in the Code of Conduct, Editorial Code and "About us" section.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

This practice is documented in the applicant's About Us section, and they meet this standard based on the evidence furnished in their application, as well as what has been discerned from reviewing their work and website.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

FactCheck Georgia’s “about us” section explains the advocacy guidelines. According to it, the parent organisation, which carries out research and advocacy in the fields of public policy, including foreign and security policy, does not advocate on FactCheck’s behalf when the issue at stake is not part of the fight against disinformation, media issues, and fact-checking topics.

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

FactCheck Georgia is a section of bigger organisation which does advocacy. However, it carries out research and advocacy in the fields of public policy, including foreign and security policy, and does not advocate on FactCheck’s behalf. In section of "About us" it is mentioned that FactCheck Georgia fights against disinformation, media issues, and accordingly it advocates for media literacy and fact-checking topics.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

The About Us section on FactCheck Georgia's website details their advocacy protocols. It states that the parent organization, involved in public policy research and advocacy, doesn't represent FactCheck unless the matter under consideration pertains to combating disinformation, media-related issues, or topics relating to fact-checking.

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: 06/02/2023

FactCheck Georgia’s debunking section usually focuses on viral online hoaxes that are important, relevant, and consequential for the public. Our debunking articles in most cases contain a screenshot of the disinformation that is fact-checked. Within our partnership with Meta’s 3PFC, these screenshots contain public posts from social media users. In most cases, user-generated disinformation content that FactCheck Georgia debunks is spread by malign repeat offenders. Therefore, we do not conceal or blur their identity due to pre-bunking purposes.

We have recently introduced a new rule to hide the name on screenshots of social media users who might spread misinformation unwittingly and have not yet proved to be repeat offenders.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

Due to pre-bunking purposes, FactCheck Georgia does not conceal or blur the identity of a person who spreads mis/disinformation on social media. This is a fair point and goes in compliance with the Standards. However, the new rule to hide the name on screenshots of social media users who might spread mis/disinformation unwittingly and have not yet proved to be repeat offenders is better approach.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

FactCheck Georgia typically debunks viral online hoaxes that are significant and relevant to the public and usually include screenshots of the fact-checked misinformation, particularly public social media posts, often spread by repeat offenders. However, they've recently started to anonymize the names of users who may inadvertently spread misinformation and are not known repeat offenders. A review of a provided example and a sample of fact-checks aligns with FactCheck Georgia's approach and explanation.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

FactCheck Georgia approaches personal identifiers with due diligence. We had one example showing how we approach such sensitive and personal information, a social media post claimed that one of the Georgian politicians, Zurab Japaridze was concealing his real surname and his father had a different surname (Gasiev instead of Japaridze). In order to verify information, we received ID card photo of Zurab Japaridze’s father from his family. The card is provided in the article, however, card number as well as ID number are concealed. Here is the example - https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/39753

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

There was not much information in RUS version when the fact-checks include sensitive and personal data. The example shared with the assessor shows that the ID number and some other data are concealed, however, one can easily see the expiry date of the ID card and the exact DOB of the person. It's important that the highest possible standards are in use by the platform now and in the future: anonymizing any personal information which has no direct link to the issue presented in the publication (claims that are under fact-checking) should be concealed. It's important to follow also GDPR rules, even though Georgia is not amongst the countries signed them.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2023

Thank you. We do not have many fact-checks that include sensitive or personal data. The ones that include these data are presented as examples in the methodology.

As for how we manage personal data protection issues, this is included in the methodology in all three languages, including Russian. Specifically, step 3 - clause 9 says, “FactCheck analysts are considerate of safeguarding the privacy of people, including minors. Therefore, articles conceal personal information in order to protect their privacy”. The clause ends with the mentioned two examples of our fact-check articles, where we have concealed the personal identifiers (in one of the examples provided in this clause that includes an ID card, the expiry date and the date of birth are no longer visible, according to the recommendation).

In addition to this clause in the methodology, there is a guideline for fact-checkers attached to the methodology (at the end of step 3 - clause 9). This guideline is accessible in Georgian, English, and Russian languages and contains two clauses that specifically address personal data protection concerns. The first clause concerns concealing personal identifiers in user-generated content, ensuring their privacy. The second clause outlines the measures our fact-checkers must follow when referring to minors in our articles.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/08/2023

The explanation is enough and fair. Hopefully, in the future the FactCheck Georgia team will continue acting as mentioned in the comment.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

From the evidence presented by Fact-Check Georgia, it's clear they have made concerted efforts to prevent the publication of personal data essential for debunking, effectively obscuring it to restrict reader access. However, to enhance transparency, it would be beneficial to provide an explanation in the publication detailing what has been obscured and the measures taken to safeguard personal information.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2023

Thank you. We do not have many fact-checks that include sensitive or personal data. The ones that include these data are presented as examples in the methodology.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/08/2023

The explanation is enough and fair. Hopefully, in the future the FactCheck Georgia team will continue acting as mentioned in the comment.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

FactCheck Georgia’s methodology explains its approach on right-to-reply the following way:

Oftentimes, it is unclear what a politician or other authors of particular claims meant in a specific statement or it is possible that he/she named such a fact whose source cannot be found. Therefore, we contact the author of the statement and check the factual information he/she stated. This helps us avoid steering our research in the wrong direction. However, at the same time, whilst being asked to be more precise, a politician or other author of a claim might try to twist the initial statement. For instance, if he/she understands that the fact named was wrong, he/she might say that something else was meant in the follow-up phase (a fact more convenient for him/her). In this case, it is difficult to decide which statement is to be prioritised for verification – the one stated earlier or the other stated whilst asked to provide clarity. It is true that each specific case is of an individual nature but FactCheck’s analysts still try to verify the statement said publicly. This happens for understandable reasons – the initial statement was heard by a wider public whist the corrected version was heard by a FactCheck-er alone. Therefore, it is recommended to verify the initial statement and assess the politician or other author of the statement based upon the respective result. However, the article should also feature the explanation of the author of the stated claim in the form of additional information.

See the example https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41559.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The applicant gives right-to-reply to the fact-checks it published. The approach of FactCheck Georgia to such matters is clearly presented to the readers in RUS version too. Methodology used by the applicant covered the issue fully. Finally, the shared example is not available in RUS, however, it shows the approach FactCheck Georgia has.

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: 06/02/2023

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Download File

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

The applicant has not shared any information about the training course that the staff might receive to understand the risk of trauma and harassment that the fact-check can cause. Of course, this is not a mandatory part of the applicant's work, however, a proper training of the staff is more than welcomed. Taking into account, gender touching and sensitive topics in the Georgian society, preparations for the staff is an added value. If there are staff members who might be trained on the topics, better to mention about it on the website (additional information can be presented in the BIO of the staff member).

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2023

Thank you. This is the best practice we hope to achieve soon.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 03/08/2023

FactCheck.ge’s two editors, the editor-in-chief as well as managing editor, have received safety training from IREX SAFE program, which aims to improve physical awareness, psychosocial care, and digital identity for media practitioners who are at risk. However, this was a one-off occasion, and we are eager to invest more in increasing editorial staff's preparedness and knowledge to manage matters like digital security, online abuse and vicarious trauma from viewing graphic images, etc.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/08/2023

The comment makes things clear. Sooner the staff members will be having training courses, better for the whole media team.

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: 06/02/2023

According to our policy, it is visibly indicated in the updated or amended article upon whose request or based upon what argument it was updated/amended. In addition, such articles are published anew on FactCheck’s website and social media pages. If it is impossible to correct the original publication (for instance, FactCheck.ge’s information posted on Twitter), the content will be published anew in the same form as the original and the correction will be highlighted.

For example, we have corrected one article last year - https://www.facebook.com/Factcheck.ge/posts/pfbid0tpTVgZ1ApoYafwMoyU1mDXeret4X6uBc6rdQxQW1wkocSYdJi68YiWzwnguXMi4rl. Usually when our articles are shared on Facebook, the links include cover photo with verdict on it. In this example, verdict was updated, therefore, we shared the link anew, also with a changed cover photo - that includes both note that the article was updated as well as new verdict on it.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The applicant shared example which is not accessible in RUS, however, it's available in ENG version: “Reconstruction of the aforementioned sights [Kutaisi Hundred-Steps Stairs and the Colchis Fountain] will begin very shortly.” (factcheck.ge). Apart from sharing on social media, the applicant shared with the readers the not that publication was corrected. The practice goes in compliance with the Code of Standards. However, it will be better, if in the title of the fact-check, FactCheck Georgia mentions about the correction.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

Three corrections were made during the previous year. Each article contains correction note explaining why and what changes were made.

The first one was made to the following article: Georgian version - https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41094; English version - https://factcheck.ge/en/story/41094
Initially, FactCheck’s verdict for this statement was FALSE. Kutaisi City Hall has appealed FactCheck.ge with a dispute on our verdict. In follow-up to this communication, editorial board reviewed the article and amended the verdict. Changes are described in the article. The article was shared on facebook, therefore, we also shared updated version - https://www.facebook.com/Factcheck.ge/posts/pfbid0tpTVgZ1ApoYafwMoyU1mDXeret4X6uBc6rdQxQW1wkocSYdJi68YiWzwnguXMi4rl

The second correction was made to the following article - ttps://factcheck.ge/ka/story/40853. This correction was not made due to an external request, but the mistake was found in-house. The article was about Oleksiy Arestovych, adviser to the President of Ukraine. Social media posts were spread claiming that Mr. Arestovych said the following: “If the West does not actively help Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians will go to the side of Russia, and then the West will have to defend itself from Russia." Initially, the debunking article at FactCheck.ge said that the quote was entirely fabricated. However, later it was confirmed that he indeed had made such a statement. Immediately a correction was made to the article, with an explanation on the mistake. This article was not shared in social networks, therefore, updated version was not shared either.

A third correction was made with regards to the following article Salome Zurabishvili: “A pardon is available when the trial is over” https://factcheck.ge/ka/story/41425. Correction was made at the request of a reader and the verdict was changed from True to Mostly True. This article was not shared in social networks, therefore, updated version was not shared either.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The applicant has shared three examples, none of the are available in Russian. However, two publications are also available in ENG. Based on the analyses of the methodology and Editorial Code, the applicant has very clear rule regarding corrections, and when having a case, the dissemination is at the same formats and channels as the original.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

Readers cannot directly request corrections on publication, however, they have a chance to submit their concerns to the editorial board. It would be great if the platform give an opportunity to the readers to send corrections to the editorial board with one/two actions on the page of the publication. There are several news websites that provide the reader with an opportunity to make some corrections and submit them to the editorial board.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 02/08/2023

Thank you for your feedback. In the long run, we aim to have a built-in direct channel on the webpage where users can send their concerns with one/two clicks.

Guide for applying to the European Fact-Checking Standards Network notes that for complying 3.3.G [Offer audiences direct channels to request a correction, within the corrections policy on their website], fact-checking operation’s corrections policy must include a channel for the public to request a correction. Dispute and Correction page on FactCheck.ge offers detailed guidelines, and users can also easily access an email address specifically designated for submitting their concerns, both requests for corrections and disputes.

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 06/08/2023

Good to see that the media house has plans to change the current webpage to get the users' feedback easier. The explanation makes things clear now.

Best Practices:

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

Article 4.1: Organisational transparency

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

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

"About us" section explains that FactCheck Georgia is part of Georgia's Reforms Associates.
In addition, this section provides links to webpage of Georgia's Reforms Associates where registration document and charter are uploaded. The registration document provides information on country of registration, legal status, registration number of the parent organization. The charter outlines how the parent organization is governed. "About us" section also provides links to the founders, board and team of the parent organization.

"FactCheck (www.factcheck.ge) is an innovative media project implemented by Georgia’s Reforms Associates which was modelled on popular and successful international analogues (www.politfact.com, www.factcheck.org) and thereby, in 2013, introduced the fact-checking culture for the first time in Georgia.

Georgia’s Reforms Associates, founded in 2012, is a multi-profile analytical think-tank whose major fields of activities include research and analysis of Georgia’s foreign, security and public policy as well public administration. For more details about activities, founders, board, charter and funding of Georgia’s Reforms Associates see relevant sections at www.grass.org.ge."

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The applicant is a part of a think-tank. The latter has a legal form and the statutes. Shared information shows needed documentations.

Applicant

Date: 06/02/2023

https://factcheck.ge/ka/chven-shesaxeb - GEO

https://factcheck.ge/ru/chven-shesaxeb - RUS

https://factcheck.ge/en/chven-shesaxeb - ENG

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

"About us" section of FactCheck Georgia provides enough information. However, previously mentioned that GEO, RUS, and ENG versions have different number of staff members. A correction is needed to make unified data.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

As explained in the About US section and in the regulatory document of FactCheck, the Editorial Board of FactCheck is in charge of upholding the organization's editorial policy and adherence to fact-checking principles. This includes independently overseeing monitoring, topic selection, article publication, and correction policy, separate from the influence of the Georgia's Reforms Associates’ Board and Director. As defined by its regulations, the Editorial Board, a collegial body within the FactCheck project, represents FactCheck and is bound by its principles as a member of international organizations and the ethical guidelines established by the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics when executing its goals and objectives.

Proof of registration/legal status:

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

ENG translation with notary stamp is preferable.

Assessor

Compliant

Date: 16/05/2023

The applicant has shared links to their registration, which includes details about their legal status, organizational structure, proof of ownership, board members, and director. This registration, along with the Charter, can be accessed on the GRASS website and is also linked from the About Us page of FactCheck.

Proof of ownership:

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

ENG translation with notary stamp is preferable.

Proof of governance structure:

Harry Tsatryan (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

ENG translation with notary stamp is preferable.

Article 4.2: Financial transparency and conflicts of interest

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

Best Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Please attach a list of an average of four original fact-checks per month from the past year if this is your first time applying to the EFCSN or from the past two years if you are renewing your application.

7. Please note which policies you have had to change, if any, over the past 6 months in order to comply with the Code.

2.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website an explanation of the process used to select, research and complete investigations, including a definition of any rating systems used.

2.B. Assess the merits of the evidence found using the same standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.

2.C. Primarily focus on topics that are in the public interest, defined here as issues that concern the welfare of society or individuals, and be willing to explain, if requested by an assessor, how various investigations fit this definition.

2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website a channel through which the public can submit possible claims for verification and encourage users to send claims to check, while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect will be fact-checked and what isn’t fact-checkable.

2.E. Identify and include in publications, when possible, access to all evidence or other required information for a reader to replicate the verification process.

2.F. Provide evidence for every pertinent factual statement made in an investigation, relying on primary sources where possible. Set out in its fact checks relevant evidence that appears to support the claim as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it.

2.H. Name all sources except when their safety is at risk. In such exceptions, anonymous sources may only be included if the information they provide is corroborated by named sources or material evidence.

2.I. When quoting experts, establish their credibility in the relevant topic.

2.J. Ensure each investigation undergoes at least one round of editing by someone other than the author before publication.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

2.K. Present findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions.

3.1.A. Be editorially free and politically independent.

3.1.B. Not endorse or advise the public to vote for any political parties or candidates for public office.

3.1.C. Not conclude any agreement or partnership with a political party or any other public relations and similar activities that could compromise the operation’s reputation for independence and impartiality

3.1.D. Not focus investigations unduly on one particular political party or side of the political spectrum.

3.1.E. Not employ anyone who holds a salaried and/or prominent position in a political party, government, state or public company under the direct control of a political party or government.

3.1.F. Explicitly address in publications any reasonable conflict of interest or political bias, including from experts or organisations cited.

3.1.H. Have internal policies that bar employees from accepting in a professional context any gifts, favours, or services with advantageous conditions that go beyond common social and courtesy items, and have procedures in place to take action if they do.

3.1.I. Make available and easily accessible on their website these and any other non-partisanship policies (See template in Annex 3)

3.1.J. Only advocate for issues that are relevant to the mission of fact-checking and are compatible with a reputation for independence and impartiality. Organisations that engage in advocacy must set out public guidelines on how they adhere to these standards.

3.2.A. Obscure the image and/or identity of subjects of an investigation when there is a reasonable concern for their safety.

3.2.B. Take measures to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny.

3.2.C. Be restrictive, respectful and considerate when mentioning or identifying minors and make efforts to protect their privacy.

3.2.D. Anonymise any personal information that could allow the harassment of people (i.e. at least partially concealing telephone numbers, IDs or passports, bank account numbers, email addresses…).

3.2.E. When appropriate and possible, a right-of-reply should be offered to any named person or organisation who is the source of the inaccurate claim and/or is the subject of significant criticism or allegations.

3.2.F. Put in place measures that aim to address the risk of trauma or harassment experienced by staff as a result of the operation’s activities, including but not limited to providing training to prevent and identify symptoms.

3.3.A. Correct every known mistake promptly with a correction note in the same publication in which the error was made; if the error is only typographical, grammatical or stylistic, a correction note is not needed.

3.3.B. When the original publication in which the mistake was made is not editable, disseminate the correction in the same format and channel as the original so that as far as possible users of the original see the correction and the corrected version.

3.3.E. Make available and easily accessible on their websites a corrections policy and a record of the corrections published over the previous year in the first application for EFCSN membership and of the previous two years upon renewal.

3.3.F. Include in their corrections policy, available and easily accessible on their websites, a detailed account of how they assess requests for corrections.

3.3.G. Offer audiences direct channels to request a correction, within the corrections policy on their website.

3.3.I. Undergo an internal and documented annual review of published corrections to determine whether methodological and procedural changes should be made to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

3.3.H. Inform audiences of the possibility of submitting a complaint to the EFCSN under the terms of article 6 with a link to the complaint form.

4.1.A. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement that sets out the applicant’s organisational structure and makes clear how and by whom editorial control is exercised.

4.1.B. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the ownership and legal status of the operation and/or parent organisation. People or entities holding over 5% of the shares must be disclosed (see template in Annex 4).

4.1.C. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information related to the governance of the operation and/or the parent organisation (see template in Annex 5).

4.1.D. Provide proof of the ownership, legal status and governance of the organisation to the external assessors

4.1.E. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the identity of the editors or decision makers behind the operation, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website regularly updated information about the positions held by all staff involved in the fact-checking operation’s editorial output, including any relevant previous roles.

4.1.G. Make available and easily accessible on their website a statement setting out the operation’s mission, values and internal guidelines in place to protect its independence.

4.1.H. Make available and easily accessible on their website the organisation’s bylaws, understood as the rules or statutes that govern the members of an organisation.

4.2.A. Disclose all income sources contributing 1% or 5.000 euros (whichever the higher), from the most recent annual accounts when joining and the last two annual accounts when renewing membership, to external assessors and the Governance Body

4.2.D. Make available and easily accessible on their website an updated declaration of all unpaid significant commitments made to other organisations (see Annex 9).

4.2.F. Make available and easily accessible on their website goods and services they receive from external sources, including paid subscriptions or free access to tools, software and/or advertising, that make a material difference to their finances (5% of net income).

4.2.H. Make available and easily accessible on or from their website the full annual accounts of their organisation for each year since joining the EFCSN.