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

FactCheckNI

Website

https://factcheckni.org/

Date

18/10/2024

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

There are two people who provide work to FactCheckNI, on a part-time basis: an executive director and an editor. They are complemented by five additional company directors and others in an advisory group. Furthermore, FactCheckNI has built a pool of 15 area expert researchers and writers who research our content. This allows us apply our limited resources in the most effective way.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/03/2024

Small item for clarification but are the 15 area expert researchers volunteers or freelance employees?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

They are freelance researchers/consultants

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Complaint

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Compliant

Applicant

Date: 05/01/2024

Download File

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 03/03/2024

The applicant provides evidence of 41 fact-checks published in 2023, 7 short of the minimum 4 per month.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 14/05/2024

We strongly believe given the limited resources at our disposal - also the regularity of our fact check production - means that we meet this criteria, particularly when different time periods are taken into consideration. Also our fact checks stylistically tend to be indepth deep dives. We published 44 articles between 2/5/23 and 2/5/24 for example - an averge of 3.666 (or rounded up to 4) - whihc given our small team, and small geographic area of focus, is to our mind, efficient and a good level of output.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 28/03/2024

According to the uploaded file between the 25th of January and the 11th of December 2023, the organisation published 41 fact-checks which is an average of 3.84 per month. This is below the required average of 4 per month, unless rounding is taken into consideration.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 14/05/2024

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

I think this is for the governance board to decide. In my opinion, it would be reasonable to make an exemption on this point as “the applicant regularly publishes original fact-checks”. However, as an assessor I can only assess compliance within the parameters given which is classified as 4 a month.

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: 01/02/2023

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about/process/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/03/2024

The applicant's fact checking process is easily found on its website.

The applicant says it selects claims to check based on whether they are checkable and whether they are important. It explains what the first of these means, in detail, but does not elaborate on the second.

It explains its research process, including contacting claimants to understand their source material, and providing citations for any other evidence of interest to the reader.

It explains briefly and adequately the rating scale it uses.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

Please note that the "process" page cannot be seen under the "about us" dropdown list, when accessing the website on a mobile phone. The list stops with "policies". This should be fixed so all users can see the process page.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The page outlines the process in a clear, accessible way.

In my opinion, there could be more detail on "how staff conduct research to evaluate claims", but considering the methodology does not need to be exhaustive, I think it is still compliant.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Our multi-levelled approach is committed to strengthening all levels of society in reaffirming a commitment to accurate information, as well as fostering confidence in the community in their ability to access that information and engage in social/political/economic
debate. We are committed to ensuring the accessibility of these debates - and in doing so ensure accountability of those in decision-making positions. Our goals are as follows:

• Increase the standard/quality of public debate;
• Create linkages between the different levels of leadership in society (grassroot to levels of political influence)
• Effectively challenge misinformation as a root of inter-communal conflict.

The accuracy and accessibility of the available information is central to the ability of individuals and communities to be encouraged and empowered to engage with debate and the political and policy making realm. We have established a competent pool of expert writers and want to continue to publish independently fact-checked and accessible articles on issues which are important to peoples’ lives in the region and can inform public debate based on accurate information rather than convenient, misleading or biased sound bites.

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about/process/ and https://factcheckni.org/topics/ for the range of topics we explore.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/03/2024

The content covered by the applicant falls into two main areas.

One is fact-checks on claims stemming from the unique political situation in Northern Ireland including claims around Brexit, NI's relationship with ROI, GB and the EU, Nationalism, Unionism, the functioning of the NI Executive etc. This is of clear public interest and importance given, as the applicant notes, the importance of effectively challenging misinformation as a root of inter-communal conflict.

The other is fact-checks of claims about topics of political interest that would be recognisable as of public interest in any region or country, such as political and media discussion of the health service, the environment, housing, crime etc.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/03/2024

The answer provided, details in methodology and the range of topics covered across the provided fact-checks all indicate that the organisation is compliant with this standard.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 03/03/2024

The applicant's code of conduct says authors will use only publicly available sources unless explained by the Editor.

Its process document page says: "Sometimes we uncover information through private correspondence and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. On occasion, we may also include underlying data/information that is not in the public domain, in order to better explain an issue."

Both of these mentions deal with the use of non-public information, but not explicitly anonymously cited information.

I found no evidence of the applicant using anonymous sources, but it would be helpful if the applicant explained more explicitly scenarios in which it would use anonymous sources, or pointed towards that information on its website.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

We do NOT use anonymous sources. We may use sources, or data, which we have had to request that is held by public institutions, e.g. the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or government departments, for example.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

The aapplicant has confirmed they do not use anonymous sources

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

I can't see specific reference to this in the methodology. I've also found it difficult to find instances of this in sampled fact-checks. Could the organisation confirm if there is a reference to this principle in the methodology and if there are any fact-checks where this might be demonstrated?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

e.g. We asked government departments for non-public stats re: asylum applications https://factcheckni.org/articles/are-over-80-of-new-asylum-seekers-in-ireland-arriving-there-from-over-the-land-border-with-ni/

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Answer provided does not address the topic of naming sources. Cannot find a reference to this in the methodology.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 05/06/2024

We added in a section to the "Process" page: When FactCheckNI researches claims, we prefer well-defined claims and publicly available sources of information and data. Sometimes we uncover information through private correspondence and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. On occasion, we may also include underlying data/information that is not in the public domain, in order to better explain an issue. We do not use anonymous sources.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 07/09/2024

Compliant

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: 01/02/2023

See: https://factcheckni.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct/

Details of commitment to independence in line with the EFCSN can be accessed here: https://factcheckni.org/about/independence/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/03/2024

The applicant's statement of independence mirrors the EFCSN requirement that publications address any reasonable conflict of interest. However, the applicant has on multiple occasions quoted evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation without making explicit the JRF has funded the applicant since 2020. See:

Was the Tories’ £20 cut to Universal Credit the biggest overnight drop in welfare since World War II? - FactCheckNI
Children living in poverty in Northern Ireland - FactCheckNI
Does Northern Ireland have the highest rate of child poverty in the UK? - FactCheckNI

Could the applicant explain whether, under the EFCSN code, it would have flagged its funding source in any of these articles and, if not, why it would not see this as necessary to address any potential conflict of interest.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

Joseph Rowntree Foundation is different to the Joseph Rowntreet Charitable Trust, and they are not the same body.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

The applicant has confirmed their funding source is not the same as the organisation cited in some articles.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

This policy is not outlined specifically on the methodology page but it is present in the code of conduct. I am marking this as compliant as the code of conduct is publicly accessible and its application means that the standard itself should be fulfilled in practice.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

See: https://factcheckni.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct/ and https://factcheckni.org/about/independence/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/03/2024

The Independence statement says the applicant will warn employees not to make political statements in the name of the operation.

Could the applicant provide more detail on what procedures it has in place if they do so, and also how it ensures that any advocacy or views on policy issues held by staff (not in connection with their fact checking role) are managed in such a way that a reasonable member of the public would not see the organisation’s work as biased.

These aspects are not entirely clear from the pages linked (e.g. can staff have opinions on policy issues when not speaking on behalf of the organisation?).

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

Our code of conduct means that staff can make no political statements in public. We also have a risk register on which any and all potential engagements by staff - and board members - are declared.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

The applicant has confirmed provided sufficient reassurance that the code of conduct does not allow staff to make political statements in public, and addressed how it manages this risk.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

Policies are sufficient to show compliance with this standard.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

See: https://factcheckni.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct/ and https://factcheckni.org/about/independence/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/03/2024

The Independence page is clear on the policy, but not the procedure in place should employees breach the policy. Could the applicant provide more information on this?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

Should this be the case - the staff member's engagement with the organisation would be terminated.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

The applicant has confirmed provided sufficient clarification on how it would take action should an employee accept gifts, favours or services that go beyond common social and courtesy items.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

Policies are sufficient to show compliance with this standard.

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: 01/02/2023

Our policy is that given our focus, we prefer well-defined claims and publicly available sources of information and data. Sometimes we uncover information through private correspondence and/or Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. On occasion, we may also include underlying data/information that is not in the public domain, in order to better explain an issue.

In order for FactCheckNI to research a claim, the claim must be:

- - a statement made in public, which can be attributed to a specific person (not limited to politicians and campaigners) or organisation (perhaps a press release or a report)
- - an assertion or allegation that can be validated or refuted (to a degree)
- - based on past or present actions (but not speculative about the future)

Therefore, we do not focus on individual subjects - which may result in our work being the source of a concern for their safety.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/03/2024

I am satisfied that the applicant's claim selection process is such that it would not focus on individuals in a way that would require their image or identity being hidden due to a concern for their safety.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

In my opinion, the answer does not fully address the standard. I am still unclear on how the organisation has put thought into the matter and takes the responsibility seriously as the criteria for researching a claim does not eliminate the possibility that the research may involve a person for whom there is a reasonable concern for their safety.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

Our work focuses on public policy issues - and those in public facing roles, i.e. politicians, organisations/institutions, and those who have influence in specific public policy areas. We are mindful of how our work is to be used as an accessible repository of good information, rather than adding to "noise" on specific issues. Therefore, we select our claims - given the limitations of resources - on how they may add to the infosystem here in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the issue of safety of claimants/subjects is not something we have needed to consider. If it was, we would treat is as with our own staff - with a risk register and an evaluation on that basis.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

With the additional information given I am confident that while the organisation does not directly include this as a standard, the focus of their work means that it is not necessary to do so.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

In order for FactCheckNI to research a claim - and given our limited resources - the claim must be: a statement made in public, which can be attributed to a specific person (not limited to politicians and campaigners) or organisation (perhaps a press release or a report).

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 22/03/2024

As mentioned, the applicant focuses on claims made in public by specific people or organisations. The applicant does not check misinformation from ordinary social media users shared deliberately or inadvertently.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

As in 3.2a the answer does not fully address the standard. Does a 'statement made in public' refer to social media posts? And if so, how does the organisation take measures to avoid exposing the source or identity of user-generated disinformation content to undue public scrutiny.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

Good question - and yes it does. But these will only be in the case of public representatives or people in positions of influence/ representning specific organisations/institutions. We do not currently have the resources to fact check the general public online.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Compliant

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about/process/

At the outset of a fact checking process, our editor will make contact with the claimant. We do so for context and allow us get a better understanding of how these claims came into the public domain.

Examples where we have and there has been/not been a response include:

"FactCheckNI got in touch with the claimant, Dr Lucy Michael, to ask her about the original claim.She pointed us in the direction of two pieces of research that highlighted a potential knock-on issue from the visa requirements: entitlements for families". See: https://factcheckni.org/articles/child-refugees-northern-ireland/
"Bishop McKeown did tell us that he had read something that supported his claim in a newspaper article, although he could not remember what paper or vouch for exactly what the article said.For all these reasons, we consider this claim inaccurate with consideration." see: https://factcheckni.org/articles/does-easier-access-to-abortion-and-contraception-lead-to-an-increase-in-domestic-abuse-and-sexual-violence/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 22/03/2024

It is evident the applicant attempts to get in touch with claimants about their claim at an early stage.

However it is unclear whether they are given a formal right-of-reply as part of that process or later on.

An applicant may provide some information about their claim source when approached at an initial stage. But they may not know at that point that the applicant is planning to write a fact check saying their claim is inaccurate. Indeed the applicant may not know at the time, that will be the conclusion of the article.

A right of reply is a right to reply to the substance of the article and claims made within it.

Can the applicant explain whether it does or will be offering claimants the right to reply to the substance of its fact checks.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

We contact and communicate with every individual/organisation/institution at the outset of every fact check and follow up with our conclusion. Many choose to ignore the latter. In cases where we do get a reply at end we include it in our fact check, e.g.:

https://factcheckni.org/articles/are-uk-child-poverty-rates-over-seven-times-higher-than-those-in-scandinavia/

https://factcheckni.org/articles/does-easier-access-to-abortion-and-contraception-lead-to-an-increase-in-domestic-abuse-and-sexual-violence/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

The applicant has confirmed it gives right-to-reply to claimants on the conclusions of articles.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The applicant has a policy on this and provided examples. This is also evident in a random sample of fact-checks.

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: 01/02/2023

We have a detailed "Risk Register" which is monitored and updated at each meeting of the Board of Directors to mitigate potential risks to staff.

We also have a policy of not having bylines in our published articles. Given the cultural context of our fact-checking organisation, i.e. a post conflict region - we are mindful that the focus should be on the information rather than perceptions attributed to a name that may be considered to be from a particular "side" of the community. Added to this, final published articles will have been re-written and edited by two people from our team to verify the sources, check the analysis, and make sure the article conforms to our style guide and principles. More complex or politically sensitive topics will be forwarded to a third person from our board of directors. We believe this mitigates the risk of harrassment of our commissioned expert researchers. We list all of these on our website and explain our policy of no bylines here: https://factcheckni.org/about/authors/

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Download File

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

The applicant provides sufficient evidence of how it reduces risk to staff.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The applicant offers strong evidence to address the risk of harassment, but the standard does require some element of training to address the risk of trauma or distress and that is not present.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 14/05/2024

This is something our board is constantly mindful of and have made a commitment to address and put in place. However, given our policy level focus - and the fact our risk register is constantly under review - we feel the immediate need for this is mitigated but is something that the process of EFCSN application has correctly surfaced and brought to our attention.

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: 01/02/2023

From 2018 - Link: https://factcheckni.org/topics/economy/were-city-deals-part-of-dups-confidence-and-supply-agreement/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 23/03/2024

There is evidence of the applicant historically correcting Twitter/X posts that were wrong.

However, in the most recent example I can find of a significantly corrected article being posted on Twitter/X, there was no indication given the article had been significantly corrected: FactCheckNI on X: "You do not have a 50/50 chance of ending up in hospital if you catch Omicron and you’ve had only had two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine and haven’t had a booster jab. Read more in our fact check ⬇️ https://t.co/x2453N4ezd https://t.co/62lWYKjhze" / X (twitter.com)

I'd appreciate some clarification as to whether the applicant's policy has changed since this tweet, or whether it considers this tweet compliant with its policy to "republish notifications on our social media channels, with a clear labelling of the updated status of the fact checked article if the verdict has changed".

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 22/05/2024

A more recent example of an update (not a rating change) here: https://x.com/FactCheckNI/status/1589607940126052352

I agree that the above was not sufficiently clear in the social media correction - and if it were to happen now given the development of processes and adherence to them, it would not happen.

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

The applicant has provided sufficient reassurance that in future, it will provide corrections on social media posts, when the article is corrected.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

This standard is covered in the corrections policy but the link provided is just to a previous article that has been corrected. It would be useful to see, if possible, an example of where the corrected article was disseminated, for instance, an X or Facebook screenshot.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 22/05/2024

A more recent example of an update (not a rating change) here: https://x.com/FactCheckNI/status/1589607940126052352

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Compliant

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

A change in rating - Please see: https://factcheckni.org/topics/econo my/were-city-deals-part-of-dups-confidence-and-supply-agreement/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

The applicant shows evidence of explaining the reason for major corrections.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

The link provided shows an example of how a correction was handled, but it does not include "an explanation of the circumstances that allowed the error to transpire" and this is not present in the corrections policy. Is there anything which addresses an explanation in any policies?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/05/2024

The updated check reads: "A previous version of this article did not include the UK Government policy paper, “UK Government Financial Support for Northern Ireland”, as an outcome of Conservative Party discussions with the DUP. FactCheckNI appreciates the DUP bringing this new evidence to our attention."

The policy paper was missed by the researcher and then editor. In our methodology we state we "welcome the submission of further evidence post publication, whether it validates or refutes our conclusion"

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Correction notes for errors which substantially change the conclusion should explain how the error transpired and this should also be present in the corrections policy. This does not appear to be the approach and it is not present in the corrections policy.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 22/07/2024

please see https://factcheckni.org/about-us/feedback-and-corrections/

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 07/09/2024

Compliant

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Corrections policy: https://factcheckni.org/about/process/

No corrections in previous year - one update with additional information here: https://factcheckni.org/articles/does-northern-ireland-support-abortion/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

The corrections policy is easily accessible under "process". As the applicant says it has not made a correction in the past year, there is no need for it to have a central record of corrections at this time.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The record of corrections is not publicly available so I have marked this as non-compliant.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 14/05/2024

We made no corrections - we added in additional information - no substantive chance to rating, or conclusion - therefore, we would maintain that no record for the previous 12 months is required.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

A matter of interpretation, but given the corrections policy addresses updates or amendments to an article, I would expect that a record of corrections should include any changes not only those where the final conclusion or rating was altered.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 05/06/2024

We have created a "Feedback and Corrections" page on our site. https://factcheckni.org/about-us/feedback-and-corrections/

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 22/07/2024

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 07/09/2024

Compliant

Best Practices:

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

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

If the internal complaints process has been followed and deemed unsatisfactory, we point individuals and groups to the IFCN currently: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/code-of-principles/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

I am rating this compliant as it is a best practice and not compulsory criterion. However, I note that the IFCN says it is not an appeals body and so I do question whether the applicant pointing complainants towards the IFCN following alleged violations of the code, is really the same as the subject of a fact check making an external complaint about that individual fact check.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

I have assessed this as non-compliant as the mechanism to appeal to the IFCN is not currently listed in the corrections policy.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 14/05/2024

We have updated this: factcheckni.org/about/process/

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Compliant after website update

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: 01/02/2023

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 23/03/2024

The team page says who the editor is, but isn't explicit about who is responsible for editorial decisions. It would be helpful to have more detail here.

It would also be helpful if the applicant was to archive its outdated personnel page Personnel - FactCheckNI

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

Applicant has added information on responsibilities during the editorial process.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

The link just lists members of the organisational structure. Is there any explanation of organisational structure and how editorial control is exercised?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 22/05/2024

please see update: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Website has been updated and so my rating has changed to compliant.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/funding/ and https://factcheckni.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 23/03/2024

The website lists the responsibilities of the management team but not the board. While this is presumably what boards of trustees generally do, this should be specified on the website to meet the criteria.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 22/05/2024

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 02/06/2024

Applicant has added information on the board, MD and editor's roles..

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 28/04/2024

The who we are page does not provide any text, just descriptions of board and management members. Is there another link that provides more description about the governance structure?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 22/05/2024

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Website has been updated and so my rating has changed to compliant.

Proof of registration/legal status:

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

Sufficient and public information on company registration.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The documentation has been attached.

Proof of ownership:

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

Sufficient and public information on company ownership.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The documentation has been attached.

Proof of governance structure:

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

Sufficient and public information on company governance. Perhaps some of this could be added to the website pursuant to criteria
4.1.C.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

The documentation has been attached.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Please see for our core opertational team: https://factcheckni.org/about-us/who-we-are/

Regarding our pool of commissioned experts/researchers, we have a policy of not having bylines in our published articles, as they are not the product of one individual. Added to this, final published articles are re-written and edited by at least two people from our team to verify the sources, check the analysis, and make sure the article conforms to our style guide and principles. More complex or politically sensitive topics will be forwarded to a third person from our board of directors.

Given the cultural context of our fact-checking organisation, i.e. a post conflict region - we are also mindful that the focus should be on the information rather than perceptions attributed to a name that may be considered to be from a particular "side" of the community. We believe this mitigates the risk of harrassment of our commissioned experts/researchers. We list all of these on our website and explain our policy of no bylines here: https://factcheckni.org/about/authors/

Abbas Panjwani (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 23/03/2024

The applicant provides biographies for its board and management team, but not all its writers for justified reasons. It does produce a list of names of contributors. I consider this compliant.

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 28/04/2024

While the policy of non using bylines is reasonable, the criteria for this standard does require short professional biographies and the author page only lists full names with no biographies.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 22/05/2024

Please see update: https://factcheckni.org/about/researchers/

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 03/06/2024

Website update has added the current affiliation or role e.g. research fellow at QUB School of Law or Independent Researcher but it does not really count as a short biography and there are no details present about any former roles.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 22/07/2024

Please see: https://factcheckni.org/about/researchers/

(Note: we are awaiting further detail of Peter Donaghy’s experience)

Kirsty Park (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 07/09/2024

Compliant

Article 4.2: Financial transparency and conflicts of interest

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

Best Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.b Please provide all the relevant information to demonstrate the existence of “a meaningful connection with the country or countries where the mis- and disinformation your organization fact-check originates from”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.A. Be editorially free and politically independent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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