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

Polígrafo

Website

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt

Date

27/07/2023

Please, answer the following questions:

Applicant

Date: 26/02/2023

Download File

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 29/03/2023

The applicant presented at least four hyperlinks for months from February 2022 to January 2023. Nevertheless, I would like to clarify why you consider the following examples as originals:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/tubarao-nada-ao-lado-de-um-automovel-numa-auto-estrada-inundada-de-agua-no-texas is this new? original? inedit? not just translated?

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/donald-trump-esta-de-volta-ao-twitter-e-agradece-a-elon-musk

In both cases, there was no original text in Portuguese for Polígrafo to check and no direct connection with Portugal. The examples I mentioned are related to the USA; one was also checked by PolitiFact. How do you ensure such publications are originals and not just a translation from English into Portuguese?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

Marilia is right in this particular case. Indeed the two links mentioned are not original content. It is important to note that not all of Poligrafo's content is original. I would say 99% of it is, but we try to share with our readers work done by international fact-checkers in territories that are reference points for our audience, such as Brazil, where there is a large Portuguese community that speaks our language, or the United States, due to the country's strategic importance in the world's political geography. It would be very arrogant of us if we thought we could do a better job than our local colleagues in scrutinising their respective realities. For this reason, our option is to adapt the published texts in exceptional situations and to scrupulously quote the authors of the original fact-checks, as was the practice in the two cases mentioned above, where Snopes and Politifact were quoted respectively. But I emphasise: almost 100% of Polígrafo's work is original. We will add more original examples to the application if considered necessary.

Pedro Jerónimo (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 15/06/2023

It presents 4 articles per month, from January 2022 to January 2023. The care taken to diversify authors of the fact-checks stands out.

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: 21/02/2023

Here is a link to our methodology:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/o-nosso-metodo

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 31/03/2023

The applicant presents almost all the information required for the methodological section of the website. It is clear that relevant politicians and other prominent people are subject to fact-checking, but it should be clearly stated how these facts start to being analyzed in the first place. Is it the reader who sends the claim? Is it the reporting team? Is it because Polígrafo is also part of a consortium? All of the options?

Furthermore, consider deleting the quotes within the word “checar” in the following sentence:

“A partir do momento em que o POLÍGRAFO, com base nestes pressupostos, decide “checar” uma informação, há cinco passos que devem ser cumpridos:”

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

We clarified the text on the site concerning this topic.

Here is the final text:

"Every day, Polígrafo's team follows a wide range of personalities whose interventions are of public relevance. We talk about politicians, commentators, influencers, artists and even sports agents.

In addition to the information that our team of journalists selects directly from various sources (social media posts, TV news, public speeches, etc.), Polígrafo is also open to suggestions from readers, who usually send us requests for fact-checks through the various channels we have available for this purpose. We also develop fact-checks as part of collaborative projects with foundations or technology companies such as Facebook, with whom we maintain editorial partnerships characterised by a fundamental principle: the choice of content to be checked is always the sole responsibility of Polígrafo's editorial team.

Polígrafo does not evaluate newspapers or journalists - he analyses the protagonists of the news, which is quite different.

Once Polígrafo has decided to take a journalistic approach to a topic based on these assumptions, there are five steps that must be followed:

Consult the original source of the information
Consult sources of a documentary nature that can solidify the checking process.
Listen to the authors of the statement, giving them the right to explain it.
Contextualise the information
Evaluate the information according to an evaluation scale

Applicant

Date: 21/02/2023

Poligrafo focuses its attention on subjects that fulfil two fundamental criteria: journalistic interest and public interest. Topics such as politics, economy, security, immigration, armed conflicts, science or health in general constitute an overwhelming part of our daily work. We believe that this is what our readers expect from us and we strive to ensure that we provide them with the right offer.

Polígrafo makes a significant effort to address all topics of public interest, like politics, health, economics ou environment. In 2022, Portugal had general elections and, just as in previous elections, our work set the political agenda several times, namely in television debates, where Polígrafo was mentioned by various candidates as a reference to support their arguments.

Our work has a wide reach across the country, since Polígrafo has, since 2019, a partnership with the leading TV channel in Portugal to produce a weekly fact-checking program. At this moment, its average audience is 1.1 million people. Since day one It is one of the most viewed information programs on portuguese TV.

Due to the impact it had on portuguese society, Polígrafo, an independent newspaper that receives no support from the state or any political party, was distinguished with 11 national journalism awards, including "Launch of the Year", "Revelation of the Year" and "Best Website of the year".

Link to our TV Show:

https://sicnoticias.pt/programas/poligrafo

The prizes Polígrafo won :

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/poligrafo-vence-mais-dois-premios-e-ja-sao-onze-em-dois-anos

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 31/03/2023

The applicant meets the criteria.

Pedro Jerónimo (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 15/06/2023

As a researcher in the field of disinformation and fact-checking, I usually monitor the activity of the Polígrafo and, therefore, I certify that he complies with this EFCSN standard.

An additional note to the EFCSN Board:

Regarding the reference to the 2022 legislative elections, I share a study carried out on them and in which I am a co-author:

Baptista, JP, Jerónimo, P., Piñero-Naval, V. & Gradim, A. (2022). Elections and fact-checking in Portugal: the case of the 2019 and 2022 legislative elections, Profesional de la información, 31(6). Avaiable: https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/87041

In this study, it was concluded that no political bias was found in the analysis carried out, which goes against what has been found by similar studies and involving other contexts and fact-checking projects.

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 31/03/2023

The applicant does an excellent job of providing multiple sources of evidence. Generally, the primary source is presented. Nonetheless, the use of non-primary sources when necessary is not clearly stated. The EFCSN requires clarification on why accessing the originals was impossible. In the following case, for example, used as part of the random sample, a Brazilian fact-checking agency ends up being the main (and secondhand) source: https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/jair-bolsonaro-comprou-um-brinquedo-erotico-com-cartao-do-governo-federal

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

As explained above, while the overwhelming majority of Polígrafo's content is original, there are cases in which we have chosen to adapt articles by our fact-checker colleagues from leading international journals. Our criteria are their credibility - and this is measured, for example, through their links to institutions such as the IFCN - and the relevance of the information to our community. An example: there is a huge Brazilian community in Portugal (30% of the foreign community) and we think it is interesting to share with this community some information about the Brazilian reality. We consider that we do a more solid job in this domain if we see the work of publications such as Agência Lupa or "Aos Fatos" as credible sources. Our rule is always the same: scrupulously quote the original promoters of the information, as happened with the example given by the advisor, in which we quoted our colleagues from "Aos Fatos".

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

Also on this topic, we have updated our methodology with this clarification:

"Although almost 100% of Polígrafo's content is original, there are very exceptional cases in which we fundamentally choose to adapt the outstanding work that is done by our international colleagues - namely those that are part of the networks to which we belong, such as the International Fact-Checking Network or the European Fact-Checking Standards Network.

Just as we believe that it would be difficult for a foreign newspaper to scrutinise the Portuguese reality with the agility and quality that we are known to do at Polígrafo, we believe that the opposite is also true. Hence our choice, always supported by a fundamental rule: scrupulously cite the original promoter of the information."

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Non Compliant

Date: 31/03/2023

It is not possible to say that the applicant meets the criteria by reading the methodology. The following sentence gives a hint that a text might be edited, but it does not seem to be a rule:

“8 - Aceitar que o seu trabalho seja editado, corrigido ou eliminado pelos seus superiores hierárquicos, depois de lhes ser dada uma explicação para qualquer destas decisões.”

The journalist’s byline is evident on the top of the page, but reading the texts is impossible to say if more than one person worked/edited in the same investigation.

Applicant

Non Compliant

Date: 24/07/2023

Indeed, although our method involves carrying out at least one and, on numerous occasions, several rounds of editing, this obligation was not clear in the description published on the website.

Here is the updated text:

From the moment Polígrafo decides to approach a topic, there are five steps that must be fulfilled:

- Consult the original source of the information
- Consult sources of a documentary nature that can solidify the checking process.
- Listen to the authors of the statement, giving them the right to explain it.
- Contextualise the information
- Evaluate the information according to an evaluation scale. Before the final text is published, it always has at least one round of editing and, depending on its degree of complexity, may have several. The final assessment is always the subject of discussion between the journalist directly responsible for carrying out the fact-check and its editor.

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/o-nosso-metodo

Pedro Jerónimo (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 15/06/2023

We did not find any information, namely in the link indicated above (https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/o-nosso-metodo). In this sense, we do not know whether the articles are subject to revision / editing and, if so, how many rounds.

Although Polígrafo is very descriptive and transparent in other indicators requested by the EFCSN, it appears not to be so at this point, so it would benefit from revising it.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

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: 21/02/2023

Polígrafo is completely independent of all political parties. In our Editorial Statute (4) we claim that none of Polígrafo's journalists is a member of a political party. Here is the link:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/estatuto-editorial

In addition, all Polígrafo's employees are asked to sign a Code of Practice that can be found at this link:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/o-nosso-metodo

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/04/2023

The applicant meets the criteria.

Pedro Jerónimo (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 15/06/2023

My assessment results more from the follow-up I do to the P, including in studies, such as the one mentioned above and which I recover:

Baptista, JP, Jerónimo, P., Piñero-Naval, V. & Gradim, A. (2022). Elections and fact-checking in Portugal: the case of the 2019 and 2022 legislative elections, Profesional de la información, 31(6). Available at https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/87041

This aimed at comparing two sensitive periods, such as the 2019 and 2022 legislative elections. Due to the increase in television debates from 2019 to 2022, fact-checks also increased, namely of statements and statements by candidates and other political actors. The conclusion of this study is in line with a perception I had, that there will be no political or ideological biases involved.

Applicant

Date: 21/02/2023

Polígrafo's employees are asked to sign a Code of Practice where they commit to "Ensure that it has no political or financial dependency of any kind on a political party, the Government, the organs of the State or any company under the control of a political party or the Government."
It can be found here:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/o-nosso-metodo

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/04/2023

The applicant meets the criteria. The biographies of the staff (https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/ficha-tecnica) show that team members have backgrounds in journalism and previous professional activities in other media outlets.

Pedro Jerónimo (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 15/06/2023

One of the mechanisms that Polígrafo - as well as other fact-checking projects - can adopt is to reinforce the editing process. Preferably someone with a preference different from that of the author of the fact-check. An author does not have to assume publicly - although he could do so - what is his ideological, political, religious position, etc. However, if publicly a fact-checking project assumes that it goes through 1-2 editing rounds, indicating that this is also a mechanism to keep the check the most equidistant of all quadrants, perhaps it could benefit transparency with the public. Or at least the effort to do so.

Applicant

Date: 21/02/2023

On our methodology page it is possible to read the following statement:

"The members of the corporate structure of the company that owns the Polígrafo should only be protagonists of news produced by the organization when justified by editorial criteria. In such cases, their role in the organization should be clearly stated."

We also establish that it is our obligation to disclose if a staff member of Poligrafo is related to an individual who is being fact-checked.

Finally, when we quote an expert on a political fact-check, we ensure that we disclose if he had previous connections with a political party.

Link:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/institucional/artigos/o-nosso-metodo

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 08/04/2023

The applicant argues, "Finally, when we quote an expert on a political fact-check, we ensure that we disclose if he had previous connections with a political party.". I could not find this level of detailing in the method. Could you please point it out or make it clear in your method? Is there any example of such a case?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

Here is an example:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/fact-check/ps-dizia-em-2010-estar-solidario-com-as-medidas-de-austeridade-do-governo-socrates

In this article, António Nogueira Leite, a renowned Portuguese economist, insinuates that the Socialists (who currently lead the Portuguese government) were supportive of the austerity measures implemented in Portugal in 2010 during the economic crisis. António Nogueira Leite is not affiliated with any political party, presenting himself as an independent. However, the fact is that he was part of a government of the Socialist Party's biggest rival (PSD), in which he served as Secretary of State for Finance. Emphasising this bias seems important to help readers interpreting the statements of protagonists in the public arena.

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:

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 3.3: Honest corrections

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

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: 21/02/2023

That information can be found at this link:

https://poligrafo.sapo.pt/o-nosso-financiamento/artigos/onossofinanciamento

Marilia Gehrke (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 08/04/2023

The section is generally well described, but I would like to go deeper into how the decision-making process is connected with those who finance the operations.

There is this excerpt:

As decisões de natureza estratégica são debatidas em Assembleia Geral pelos dois sócios, sempre tendo como objetivo fundamental o cumprimento do compromisso que fizemos com os leitores desde o primeiro dia: fazer a informação mais independente que pudermos.

The organization claims that the main goal is to provide independent information. Is this possible without an editorial board? How do you ensure the quality of your operations?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 24/07/2023

We do not consider it essential to have an editorial board to be able to produce high-quality information. Our focus is on investing in good journalists and a clear and demanding methodology that minimise the likelihood of making mistakes. We believe that having excellent professionals, safeguarded by the best journalistic and ethical practices, is the right approach to guarantee the final quality of our contents.
Issues of editorial concern are not discussed at the company's board meetings, where topics related to the business strategy and financial sustainability of the project are addressed.

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.