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

Re:Baltica

Website

https://rebaltica.lv/recheck/

Date

15/11/2023

Please, answer the following questions:

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

We check potentially misleading or false statements by politicians, other officials and opinion leaders, organizations; media outlets and claims published by social media users on current and socially significant topics. In our understanding, this is the well-being of the public in its broad interpretation: the rule of law, the quality of health care and education, security and climate issues. In the summer of 2022 we counted (link) that out of 635 articles, more than half were devoted to the Covid-19 pandemic and vaccination. Another 60 articles were related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; 57 - to economic inequality, poverty, tax policy; 48 to public health issues (besides Covid). When reviewing social media claims, we consider the size of tge audience they have reached. Often this also shows the importance of the issue to the society.

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/06/recheck-tris-gadi/

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/07/2023

The topics covered and fact-checks carried out fall within the scope of public interest.

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The applicant is concentrating on topics that concern the welfare of society and individuals. This includes a wide range of issues, from quality of health care, rule of law, and education, security etc. The applicant meets this standard.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

A call to submit a statement or other kind of narrative for verification can be found under every fact-checking article. It is also published on our "about us" page.

LV:
https://rebaltica.lv/2023/05/vai-satversme-nosaka-ka-gimenes-pamats-ir-lauliba-starp-virieti-un-sievieti/
https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

RU
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/5091
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/07/2023

Re:Baltica has provided the public with means to submit claims for possible checking.

I'd advise to make this option more visible. It is true that at the end of every article there is a sentence which invites people to send claims for checking through the provided email address, but this invitation is a part of a text block with smaller letters that contains other explanatory information. Thus, the invitation to submit suspicious claims is not very visible. A bright button somewhere would attract more attention.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 14/07/2023

We have changed the position of the invitation to send in suspicious claims. So starting from now it will be more visible. Please see an example: https://rebaltica.lv/2023/07/dziesmu-svetkos-neizsmidzinaja-dezinfekcijas-lidzekli/

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

There is a call to submit new pieces of information under every fact-checking article, and the call is also published in "about us" page.

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

LV: https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

We follow the statements of representatives of all political parties represented in National Parliament. We apply the same procedure and standards when we are choosing what to check, when we are analysing the particular claim and when we are reporting on it. In the summer of 2022, summarizing the results of the first three years of Re:Check's operation, we concluded that the two parties we had reported most often were first the Prime Minister's party and second the largest opposition party of Parliament. The analysis showed that we have covered the politicians' statements in well balanced way, not focusing on particular political parties or side of the political spectrum. https://rebaltica.lv/2022/06/recheck-tris-gadi/

Examples of our publications from 2022 presented below confirms that. (It should be noted that 2022 was the year of the Saeima elections in Latvia and several of the current opposition politicians were social media activists before the elections, whose statements have been covered in other fact-checks). The same methodology and attitude is well illustrated by the first article below about a decision that was widely discussed at the time and was important for Latvia's economy and biological diversity - the government's changes in tree felling regulation. The article points to the misleading claims and inconsistencies of the actions of the politicians of all three political parties involved.

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/07/jaunaku-mezu-cirsana-ka-to-panaca-un-kurs-parmetis-kazoku/
https://rebaltica.lv/2022/04/vai-reiram-taisniba-ka-es-valstis-inflacijas-laika-neatbalsta-visu-sabiedribu/

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/05/vai-karinam-taisniba-ka-pvn-samazinasana-vairak-palidzetu-bagatniekiem/

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/05/golubeva-maldina-lielaka-dala-smago-noziegumu-latvija-netiek-atklata/

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/06/vai-dzintaram-taisniba-ka-latvijai-ir-straujakais-progress-jaundzimuso-skaita-uz-vienu-sievieti/

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/10/vai-cvk-japarbauda-kandidatu-izglitiba-un-darba-pieredze/

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/11/vai-kulbergam-taisniba-ka-loti-daudzas-valstis-nav-minimalas-algas/

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/12/vai-kristopanam-taisniba-par-valsts-paradu/

We also fact-check pre-election live debates. In 2022 before the National Parliament election, we did six publications fact-checking all the statements by all the candidates who participated in pre-election live debate programms on Public TV. Two examples:

https://rebaltica.lv/2022/09/energetikas-politika-parbaudam-deputatu-kandidatu-teikto-ltv-debates/
https://rebaltica.lv/2022/09/22880/

RU:
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529
Re:Check does not fact-check statements of politicians in Russian therefore no examples to present. Fact-checks of the past years that can be found on our website have been translated from Latvian.

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/07/2023

Russian language version, which I am tasked to assess, indeed does not focus on claims by Latvian politicians.

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The applicant has provided the explanation for compliance. No information countering the statement has been found during the assessment process.

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:

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

LV: https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
RU: https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

The Methodology page describes the correction policy. It says that Re:Check promptly corrects any factual errors that might have been committed and adds note under the article in question. In case of a grave error, it is being made known on social media. If new information appears that was not known during the time when the article was produced and that changes the verdict of the fact-check, a note is added to the article and on social media.

This policy is fine, but still some space for improvement exists. In case an error has been significant and has affected the verdict, this could be stated more visibly — in the headline and at the beginning, rather than the end of the article.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 14/07/2023

We've updated our corrections policy. If the error is significant, an indication of the correction is also added to the title of the article.

https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

There is a policy in place to ensure compliance with this standard. Examples of corrections are provided (e.g., https://rebaltica.lv/2023/03/vai-palielinata-mirstiba-australija-un-lielbritanija-saistita-ar-covid-potem/; https://rebaltica.lv/2022/07/lauksaimnieku-protesti-niderlande-kadi-maldi-un-puspatiesibas-tiek-izplatitas/

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The exact place in the article that is corrected, is being marked with "*"

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529
If we have made substantial factual errors during, we correct them and add a corresponding indication under the article, as well as to the links on social media. We do the same if we have received important information that we did not know at the time of publishing the story. We change the conclusion if the error or the new information is significant and changes the essence of the statement, and we indicate it. Since the introduction of the practice, there have been no such occasions. If minor changes have been made to the article or minor additional information has been added, we indicate this with a note below the text of the article.

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

This section emphasizes situations when errors cannot be directly edited. A typical example is a picture or an infographic in an image format that might have been created and published by Re:Check and later turns out to be erroneous. The image perhaps now appears in the preview of the link on social media and as such cannot be altered. Or Re:Check might have produced an erroneous image and posts it on its social media accounts. Or a tweet with an error gets posted (and most Twitter users cannot edit their tweets). What do you do then?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

We've taken your suggestions into account and updated our corrections policy.
https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
Please note that we have followed the same policy regarding errors in our social media posts in the past. One example:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CkSmM1AoIPG/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The applicant’s methodology is explained in the application and it complies with the standard, and also the practice is explained in their web-site, in the corrections policy section

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

LV:
https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
https://rebaltica.lv/2023/03/vai-palielinata-mirstiba-australija-un-lielbritanija-saistita-ar-covid-potem/
https://rebaltica.lv/2022/08/maldinataji-sej-saubas-par-saeimas-velesanu-drosibu-balsojot-arzemes/
https://rebaltica.lv/2022/07/lauksaimnieku-protesti-niderlande-kadi-maldi-un-puspatiesibas-tiek-izplatitas/

RU: https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529
There are no examples in Russian.

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 09/07/2023

This criterion asks to make available an overview of all the corrections that have been made during the last year. While the Error correction policy is available, an overview of articles is not.

Since there is no information of any correction that have been carried out in the Russian language articles, there also cannot be such a section. This is the reason why I am marking this as "Compliant" for the Russian language version, which I am tasked to assess. However, for the Latvian language version, this criterion does not appear to be fulfilled at the moment.

Applicant

Compliant

Date: 14/07/2023

We have updated the information on our website. The record of the corrections published over the previous year is available now.

https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

Corrections policy is published on the applicant's web-site, it is easily accessible, and it contains overview of the corrections made: links to the corrected articles are provided.

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

The assessment of requests for corrections is not explicitly discussed in the Methodology page. It does state that the author of the disputed claim has the right to challenge the verdict by email, and it also requests that anyone who sees an error in Re:Check articles writes an email. What happens after the reception of such an email is not known. Are external reviewers contacted or are additional checks carried out by the staff?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

We have updated our corrections policy including detailed account of how we assess requests for corrections. Please see:

https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

On the web-site of the applicant, the following explanation is provided:" If we have made factual errors during the fact-check, we correct them and add a corresponding note below the article. If the error is significant, we also add a relevant indication to the article's links on social media. We also act if we have received important information that we did not know at the time of writing the article. If an error or an addition to the article is significant (including to change the evaluation of the statement), we do so by adding a relevant indication to the article title, below the article, as well as to its links on social media. If a significant mistake is made in our social media posts, when submitting an article, we delete the respective post and indicate in the next post that we made a mistake in the previous post. If you see an error in our article, please let us know at [email protected] or on social media. If the opinion of the applicant and the Re:Check team differ on a possible factual error, two more Re:Baltica journalists, who do not work in fact checking on a daily basis, are involved in making the decision. If the submitter is not satisfied with Re:Baltica's final answer, it is possible to submit a claim about our work at the Ethics Council of the Latvian Association of Journalists or the Latvian Media Ethics Council.

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: 01/02/2023

LV:
https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
https://rebaltica.lv/par-mums/

RU:
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

The board members and employees has been listed. The page https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас provides the bios of these people, but does not explicitly state "how and by whom editorial control is exercised". Implicitly it can be deduced, given that Evita Puriņa is the head of Re:Check.

The description is vague about the role of Inga Spriņģe apart from the fact that she is a co-founder of Re:Baltica. What kind of editorial power does she have? What powers do board members have and what do they do for Re:Baltica?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

Re:Check is only one section of Re:Baltica. The pages https://rebaltica.lv/par-mums/ and https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас state that clearly. They also state that Inga Sprinģe ir Re:Baltica’s journalist and one of the two founders of Re:Baltica. She is not involved in fact-checking. The list of journalists who are doing fact-checks are listed on both pages: “About us” and the one which is dedicated to Re:Check. We have updated the information in “About us” page to make it more clear that Evita Puriņa ir not only the head but also the editor of Re:Check.

The Charter explains in detail what the duties and powers of the board members are. We have published the link to the Charter on our page. We have updated the information on the website with an additional reference to it and translated the Charter into Russian.

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

A link is provided to where this information is disclosed on the applicant's website. This information provides a clear indication of the applicant’s organizational structure and the ways how editorial power is exercised. It is made explicit who is the director, editors in chief, journalists within the Re:Check team.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

LV:
https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
https://rebaltica.lv/par-mums/

RU:
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 09/07/2023

✅ Re:Check is a part of Re:Baltica
✅ The description says that Re:Baltica is based in Rīga, although not all non-Latvians might know that Rīga is in Latvia
✅ The legal status is provided (non-profit NGO)
❎ The registration number is not stated on the page, but it is visible in the charter, a link to which is provided. However, since the charter is only in Latvian, it would be advisable to provide the registration in the "About us" page, too.
❎ The ownership is not perfectly clear. Who of the listed people (employees and board members) owns what of Re:Baltica?

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

We have updated the information on the website with an additional reference to it and translated the Charter into Russian. It includes registration number and is easy accessible via link on our page.

https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас

Regarding your remark about the ownership please note that Re:Baltica is non-profit NGO. The legal status (non-profit NGO) is clearly stated on our page. Non-profit organisations do not have owners, so there are no owners to be listed. Re:Baltica is governed by the board (members and their bios listed on the page; their duties explained in the Charter) and Executive Director. The information on the page states that the Executive Director is Sanita Jemberga, her bio is also given. The duties of the Executive Director is explained in the Charter.

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The relevant information is provided in the links included in the application.

Proof of registration/legal status:

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The required document is added to the application

Proof of ownership: Proof of governance structure:

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 10/07/2023

Please be advised that ".pages" is not a universally recognized file format and you should use .docx or .pdf instead.

As far as I could tell, this file contains the charter of Re:Baltica, which is also linked to in the "About us" page. The document reveals the governance structure in adequate detail.

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The statutes of the parent organization Re:Baltica could not be downloaded from the application, however, for assessment purposes the statutes were accessed from here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j72elE99AGHsNiwhZnHoKdsEg2nYnu5K/edit

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:

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/07/2023

The listed sources of income do not indicate a risk of a conflict of interest.

EFCSN states that the applicant needs to reveal all income sources that contribute over 1% of the organisation’s total income, or over 5,000 euros (whichever is higher), from their most recent annual accounts. However, the income source "19 600 EUR" states: "Small individual donations, legal persons (between 1 - 10 000 EUR)", which leaves a possibility that some of the donations from legal persons have been larger than 5000 eur and thus need to be individually revealed.

Also, the income source "128 531 EUR" is identified as an "European government program, disclosure restricted by mutual agreement at their request due to possible hostile actions." My understanding is that the assessment procedure is confidential, thus naming this program here should not cause hostile actions. I accept that the mutual agreement with the organization may forbid revealing its name to any third party, but in this situation it causes a problem with transparency. I'll leave this to the EFCSN Governing body to decide.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

Regarding the possible donations above EUR 5000 we inform that Re:Baltica has not received donations in amount on EUR 5000 or higher. So there is no individual donation to reveal so far.

Regarding the income source "128 531 EUR" we inform that for few years Re:Baltica was recipient of grant of UK Foreign Office, public disclosure of which is forbidden by contractual agreement. The same agreement has a clause of total editorial independence. We are now revealing the donor in confidence to EFCSN assessor because the grant's term is over and hence the hostility risk is smaller.

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

No source from the ones listed were considered as a potential conflict of interest, hence the assessors position is there should not be other sources listed in the applicant’s website apart from the ones that are already published there.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

Annual income in 2023 - 661 787 EUR (please, take into account that in 4.2.A we are declaring the sources in 2023, here - the financial year according to accountancy rules because that is law (March 2022 - March 2023).

For general public there is a paragraph on our webpage about sources.

Our income is built from three sources. First is competitive grants, mostly from the institutions based in EU/NATO countries (for example, over years we have been beneficiaries in the competitive calls for cross-border investigative journalism in EU, IJ4EU, Open Society Foundations, European Commission/BECID, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Latvian Society Integration Fund, Calouste Gulbenkian foundation, Free Press Unlimited, POBB program etc). Second is our own income which we earn from teaching, moderating the events, doing research, scripting and producing documentaries as well as providing fact-checking services to META. Third source of income are donations, both from physical and legal persons, list of which is attached to our annual reports. Re:Baltica has been recognised as the organisation which is doing the public good, therefore the donors can get the tax-break. All donors – individual or institutional – who gives more than EUR 4999 have to sign an agreement which protects Re:Baltica’s editorial independence.

In 2022, 8 percent of our income were donations, 32 percent grants and 60 percent we earned ourselves.

If someone wants more information, there are annual reports in the business registry.

https://rebaltica.lv/par-mums/
https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/
RU
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас
https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/07/2023

The website makes publicly available the main sources of income and their breakdown by percentage.

However, this criterion also says: "Make available and easily accessible on their website an updated declaration of the overall annual income of the organisation." The website does not list the total annual income.

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

We have updated the website and published the total annual income of 2022. It was EUR 661,787.

Please see:

https://rebaltica.lv/par-mums/

https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас

https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The overview of the funding for the parent organization Re:Baltica is provided in the section "Who pays for it" on its website. It states the following: "Our income has three sources. The first - grants obtained through competition, mainly from European Union/NATO-based organizations (over the years we have received funding for investigative journalism from IJ4EU, Open Society Foundations, European Commission/BECID, Sigrid Rausing Trust, Society Integration Fund, Calouste Gulbenkian foundation, POBB program etc.). The second source is our own income from teaching, moderating events, conducting research, writing scripts for documentaries and producing them, as well as providing a fact-checking service for META. The third source of income is donations from legal entities and individuals. Re:Baltica has been granted the status of public benefit, so donors can receive tax deductions. All donors - both individuals and organizations - who donate more than EUR 4999 must sign an agreement that the donor fully respects the editorial independence of Re:Baltica. In 2022, 8% of our budget was donations, 32% was grants and we earned 60% ourselves. In 2022, Re:Baltica's total annual revenue was 661,787 euros.

Applicant

Date: 01/02/2023

LV: https://rebaltica.lv/par-mums/
RU: https://ru.rebaltica.lv/о-нас

Ianis Bucholtz (assessor)

Needs more info

Date: 10/07/2023

The "About us" page states that the donors must sign an agreement about respecting Re:Baltica's editorial independence, which is good.

It would be advisable to expand the respective section to explain in more detail which work is funded by what sources of income, to achieve even greater transparency. (For example, if a funding source is NATO and EU organizations, where has this money been spent? What kinds of materials by Re:Baltica are being produced with this money, what topics covered?)

Applicant

Needs more info

Date: 14/07/2023

We have updated our website expanding the information on our sources of income. We have published an explanation about the funding of fact-checking and how it is indicated in each of our fact-checking articles.

Please see:

https://rebaltica.lv/2019/06/recheck/

https://ru.rebaltica.lv/archives/1529

Agnese Davidsone (assessor)

Compliant

Date: 08/08/2023

The overview of the funding for the parent organization Re:Baltica is provided in the section "Who pays for it" on its website, and it states that "All donors - both individuals and organizations - who donate more than EUR 4999 must sign an agreement that the donor fully respects the editorial independence of Re:Baltica. In 2022, 8% of our budget was donations, 32% was grants and we earned 60% ourselves. In 2022, Re:Baltica's total annual revenue was 661,787 euros."

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.