Find all about our registration here: https://correctiv.org/kontakt/impressum/

We are registered as a non profit organization with the commercial register of the town of Essen in Germany. Our registration # is HRB 25135

Our factchecking newsroom is a distinct fact-checking project of organization.

Please find attached our registration.

The organization "Correctiv - Recherchen für die Gesellschaft" is a non-profit new organization legally registered in Essen, Germany. It names directors and those legally responsible including its commercial register entry on its website under its "Impressum" section and provided proof of its non-profit status. It has an independent newsroom for fact-checking comprising five designated fact-checkers.

1. The fact-checking team was founded in 2017.

2. At the moment (April 2020) we are 5 employed fact-checkers (Tania Röttger, Till Eckert, Alice Echtermann, Bianca Hoffmann, Matthias Bau). Additionally, we work with 3 freelancers (Cristina Helberg, Lea Weinmann, Steffen Kutzner). 

3. We monitor Social Media platforms and different websites, choose which claims we fact-check, investigate them by consulting different sources and publish articles. We have a cooperation with Facebook to link our fact-checks to content on the platform. We are also in contact with fact-checkers from other countries (in the IFCN) to exchange knowledge. We write a regular email newsletter and maintain our profiles on Twitter, Instagram and a Facebook group with about 1.000 members to inform our readers about our fact-checks. We give interviews and workshops about media literacy, disinformation and fact-checking.  

4. As the demand for fact-checks is growing even more, we have enlarged our team in March 2020 and founded a CrowdNewsroom where readers can send us their requests for fact-checks. We would like to professionalize the way we communicate with our readers, hopefully also via Whatsapp. We aim to publish more in-depth background articles about the people and organizations that spread misinformation and to get our community fact-checking project Checkjetzt running.

The applicant publishes comprehensive information on its website about the newsroom team, its overall approach and future development goals. CorrectivFaktencheck addresses less individual statements made by particular politicians but verifies primarily false or misleading reports online about health, migration, climate change and other publicly relevant topics. These issues are often embedded in Germany's far-right political movement and their online communication networks, which results in hostilities towards the organization from this group whereas the rest of the political spectrum cultivates - in comparison - a more sober rhetoric and interaction with media organizations such as Correctiv.

See attached a spreadsheet with all fact-checks that we published in 2020.

We cover disinformation that spreads in Germany / in German language. The topics we often deal with are migration to Germany or Europe, refugees, climate change or health (coronavirus, vaccines). We also react to rumors that follow news events, e.g. crime.

The applicant provided 123 fact-checks published within three month (Jan - March 2020)

x

The provided fact-checks as well as the last ten pieces published at the time of the assessment cover almost exclusively topics of public interest; that is, public health, migration, and climate change. Another focus is on various crime news touching on migration, religion, and extremism likewise.

We don't have financial or institutional relationships to any political party or politicians in Germany. 

For our fact-checking cooperation, we get financial compensation from Facebook through the 3rd Party Fact Checkers Programme, but Facebook doesn't interfere in our work. We choose freely which topics we fact-check and publish. We explain our cooperation here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/12/17/ueber-die-kooperation-zwischen-correctiv-faktencheck-und-facebook 

Correctiv as a whole receives donations and funding from several foundations. Important supporters are the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, Schöpflin Foundation, Adessium Foundation, Luminate and Open Society Foundation. We also received funding from the Google Digital News Initiative and Mercator Stiftung.

From this money only a small fraction is dedicated to the CORRECTIV Fact Checking - as from the Open Society Foundation or the Google news Initiative.

Also we get small donations from individuals who want to support CORRECTIV. These are sums between 3 and 100 Euros / month. But we don't report on the sum that is dedicated to CORRECTIV as a whole organization and the sum, that is dedicated to the factchecking.

See our transparency report 2/2019 here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/transparenzbericht/ It also includes the memberships of the journalists working for the fact-checking team (e.g. in organizations, sports clubs...)

Also we publish our finances here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/ -> "Finanzen und Förderer"

More information about our finances and the members of our board of trustees and our ethics council can be found here: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/

from time to time we get some funding from "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" which is a state run agency for education. In 2019 it was 74.140 Euro. The moey was dedicated to our Reporterfabrik.

CORRECTIV is a non-profit business funded by several foundations as well as by donations of its readers. The organization publishes annual financial report disclosing all income revenues subdivided into private donations, foundations, companies, and the state sector. It likewise specifies its expenses and the projects that receive dedicated grants allowing readers to retrace the financial basis of its operations (https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/). Correctiv has a policy governing the transparent handling of its finances including the disclosure of the names of donors above 1000€ and commits itself to editorial independence (https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/). Moreover, the financial reports list the memberships of the initiative's members (i.e. https://download.correctiv.org/correctiv-transparenzbericht%E2%80%8B-quartal-2-2019%E2%80%8B.pdf)

The "Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung" which is a state run agency for education supportet Workshops like. „Freedom for InformationRights for Everybody" - We inform here about this cooperations: https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/ -> "Finanzen und Förderer"

x

As stated above, Correctiv specifies the grants designated to particular project and does so in this case, too. The funding does not affect the Faktencheck project but serves the provision of workshops concerned with democratic education.

1) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/16/coronavirus-keine-belege-dass-ibuprofen-eine-erkrankung-verschlimmert - we show that there are contradicting opinions of experts about this

2) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/12/islamistischer-und-rechter-terror-in-deutschland-irrefuehrender-vergleich-der-todeszahlen

3) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/migration/2019/07/25/diesen-zahlen-zur-kriminalitaet-im-kontext-von-zuwanderung-fehlt-kontext

- 2 and 3 show that we take the same standards for statistics regardless the political view

4) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/05/coronavirus-ja-deutschland-hat-schutzausruestung-nach-china-geschickt - if something turns out true we publish the article, even if the website is known to spread disinformation, like Journalistenwatch

5) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/03/09/dieses-video-entstand-nicht-an-der-grenze-zu-griechenland-sondern-zu-mazedonien - we show that pictures and videos can be used out of context to create disinformation

6) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/02/27/tatverdaechtiger-von-volkmarsen-ist-kein-muslimischer-marokkaner-mit-deutschem-pass - we react to rumors that can spread hate or prejudice

7) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/18/erneut-radikale-afd-zitate-auf-facebook-im-umlauf

8) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2019/10/31/schon-wieder-falsche-gruenen-zitate-im-umlauf

- 7 and 8 show that we take the same standards for quotes of politicians, regardless which party

9) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/wirtschaft-und-umwelt/2020/02/14/ein-wachsender-gletscher-auf-groenland-bedeutet-nicht-es-keinen-klimawandel-gibt

10) https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/wirtschaft-und-umwelt/2020/02/18/nein-voegel-in-nordwales-fielen-nicht-wegen-einer-5g-anlage-tot-vom-himmel

- 9 and 10 show that we have many different topics of our fact-checks 

We always name our sources and, if possible, provide links to them. If they are not publicly available, we include screenshots – also of important emails. We archive links whenever possible. 

The provided examples demonstrate the applicants focus on the issue in question regardless of the particular sources. As pointed out, example 2 and 3 do indeed contradict claims representing different political tendencies, which in each case inaccurately overestimate crimes of their respective "target groups", here: Islamic and Nationalists terror. The same holds true for the other examples and a review of the last 10 pieces published at the time of the assessment (05/01/2020): the fact-checks refer to statistics and reliable information, discuss their quality and relevance and conclude the accuracy of the statement in question, not their source.  

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen 

The applicant explains to choose claims depending on their relevance in terms of their prevalence in social media and likely inaccuracy. The notion of "any one side" is accordingly not really applicable since the organization focuses mainly on online mis/disinformation as such, even though it has a notable focus on certain topics: that is, climate change, migration, crime and, more recently, especially public health. These topics, or mis/disinformation about them, respectively, resonate more with certain political groups in Germany, but the fact-checks focus, as already stated, on the issue in question.

x

The applicant notes the political affiliation or interests of sources and explain their significance for the question and their reliability, if used as a factor in the analysis itself.

x

The applicant as well as its holding organization state their commitment to unbiased, non-political work in their bylaws and have an ethics committee to ensure adherence. The organization is a strong advocate for press freedom, human rights, and transparency in the governmental as well as business sector, and it takes emphatically position against anti-democratic tendencies in its social media channels and other publications. This situation occasionally leads to visible conflicts with various social groups, though not on behalf of parties or advocacy groups but basic values.

https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/

See Criteria 1.5; otherwise: the social media accounts of the key team of Correctiv Faktencheck do not express support for politicians, political parties or candidates, nor policy issues that would indicate an effect on their work or create such a public appearance.

x

The reviewed fact-checks of the applicant demonstrate a stringent sourcing policy: that is, all essential evidence - including the claim's source - must be identified and accessible by the readers. The pieces accordingly provide links where applicable, present important key evidence in form of screenshots, and save unsteady source on appropriate archives.

x

The sample of fact-checks investigated use almost exclusively primary sources of high quality and the very few secondary sources referred to results of other fact-checkers or reports of legacy media only.

x

The applicant cites in complicated cases often more than one source (for example: different studies, or a confirmation of its conclusion by an expert), though relies if possible on highly reliable official source to begin with. 

x

see criteria 2.3

We are a fact-checking section of a parent organization. This is explained here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/correctiv-faktencheck 

The applicant is an independent newsroom within its parent organization Correctiv.

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/correctiv-faktencheck                            

The applicant clearly states that it is part of Correctiv - an obvious situation due to its name and integration on the website of the organization, anyway.

https://correctiv.org/ueber-uns/ 

Correctiv provides comprehensive information about its organizational structure, its members, and additional boards including the organizational structure of its fact-checking team (https://correctiv.org/team/tania-roettger/).

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/05/20/unser-team 

Corrective provides professional profiles about all its members and complies them in case of the fact-checking segment once again in an additional overview (https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/05/20/unser-team). 

Our email addresses are included into our authors profiles. They can be accessed by clicking on the name of the author of any article. 

Example: https://correctiv.org/autor/tania-roettger/ 

Both Correctiv and the fact-checking newsroom provide various opportunities for users to communicate with the editorial team, or the head of the fact-checking team.

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/correctiv-faktencheck

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-bewertungsskala

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen 

Explanation about satire: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2019/07/03/unsere-satire-richtlinie-was-wir-als-satire-bewerten-und-was-als-falschmeldung 

The applicant provides a series of articles about its mission/approach, method, rating system as well as further issues like satire policy or how to detect misinformation.

x

The applicant selects claims to check based primarily on the reach and importance of the claims, and the articles often start with information about its emergence and spread online so far.

x

In principal, yes. However the project verifies usually quite particular claims by well-suited statistics or scientific studies that address the very claim in question and thus both sides of it, so to speak, at once. The applicant does though evaluate and weight the contra-argument in its reasoning and is open to different points. 

x

See criteria 2.1

x

Not really applicable since the majority of fact-checks is concerned with claims/posts that appear on social media channels, gain currency in form of chain letters and otherwise, and thus often do not provide a clear or addressable author.The applicant explained in an email exchange that reporters ask for confirmation if the statement in question is contributed to a particular person, though his/her authorship is not clear (examples:https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/05/die-meisten-dieser-zitate-stammen-von-afd-politikern-einige-sind-aber-unbelegt; https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/politik/2020/02/18/erneut-radikale-afd-zitate-auf-facebook-im-umlauf).However, the step is not part of the public methodology and it does not include requests for proof on part of the source, even where applicable (e.g. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/04/22/faktencheck-zu-stefan-homburg-warum-seine-argumente-zur-reproduktionszahl-des-coronavirus-zu-kurz-greifen). For the great majority of fact-checks, that is online claims, the applicant accordingly meets the criteria, but it might be necessary to reconsider its proceeding in cases with clear authorship.

We encourage users in our Facebook group and on Twitter to contact us and send us claims they think should be fact-checked. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/371914543532346/ 

https://twitter.com/correctiv_fakt 

Since a few weeks we also have a CrowdNewsroom where people can send us claims about the coronavirus: https://forms.crowdnewsroom.org/corona-fakenews/corona-fakenews/slide0 

We always explain that we have a look at everything they send us, but have to decide whether it is suitable for a fact-check or not. How we select is explained here: https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen 

We added the policy concerning 5.6. here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen

-> Wie wählt ihr eure Beiträge aus?

and here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards

-> 4. Verpflichtung zur Transparenz der Arbeitsweise

The applicant encourages readers in various places on its website and social media channels to submit suggestions, but does not really specific what is eligible and what it will consider under which circumstances. It new tool to submit suspicious content is very structured though and might already satisfy the required conditions. 

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen 

The project declares in its FAQ that it will transparently correct any mistake and provides an email to submit observations of errors.

x

We added the policy concerning 6.2. also here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/haeufig-gestellte-fragen

-> Was ist, wenn ich einen Fehler bei Euch entdeckt habe?

and here:

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards

-> 5. Verpflichtung zur offenen und ehrlichen Korrektur

The applicant does only state its commitment to correct mistakes and provides an email for corresponding request but does not spell out a detailed policy that sets out clear definitions of what it does and does not cover, how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled, and the fact that some complaints may not justify a response.

If readers or publishers contact us with a complaint about our fact-checks, we always investigate if we have to correct something. If we change our articles, we make this transparent in an update / statement below or above the text. 

1) About this article readers told us we made a mistake by not explaining / using the statistics correctly. We did a whole correction of the article and made it transparent in statement. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/migration/2019/07/25/diesen-zahlen-zur-kriminalitaet-im-kontext-von-zuwanderung-fehlt-kontext 

2) In this case the publisher contacted us and provided further proof of his claims, so we changed our rating. https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2020/02/20/keine-belege-fuer-angebliche-pruegelattacke-durch-fuenf-afrikaner-in-wien 

The applicant provides to examples of a correction and update. Both articles clearly state the changes in the beginning (correction) and at the end (update) of the pieces in different font and explain the situation in great detail.

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/ueber-uns/2018/10/04/unsere-standards 

The applicant informs its readers in its 'our standards' section about the principals of the IFCN and points out the possibility to complain about potential violations providing the appropriate link to the IFCN (https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/complaints-policy).

https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/ 

Correctiv declares its commitment to correct mistakes transparently in its editorial policy, see IV.8. (https://correctiv.org/redaktionsstatut/). No example available.