Demagog.cz is legally registered as an association with the explicit purpose of fact-checking and related activities. Information about the association and its structure are listed on the website at: https://demagog.cz/stranka/o-nas.

Link to public register: https://or.justice.cz/ias/ui/rejstrik-firma.vysledky?subjektId=938169&typ=PLATNY

As evidenced by the provided links both on Demagog`s website and the public register of legal persons, Demagog is a legally registered stand-alone entity, founded principally for the purpose of „fact-checking of politicans`s claims in publicly available discussions and debates“ (other purposes include „putting pressure on the advancement of quality of political discussions“, „improving civic democratic society“, „education with respect to media literacy“ or „advancing the principles of personal responsibility“).

Recently, the platform has also partnered with the platform Naši politici („Our politicians“, a website containing profiles of various, mainly high-profile politicians in the country), attaching every politicans` profiles with a scorecard containing the number of their claims being fact-checked by Demagog and categorizing these with respect of their (in)correctness.

In 2017, I had the opportunity to assess Demagog when it first applied to be the signatory of IFCN`s Code of Principles. To quote my previous assessment: „Demagog is one of the few fact-checking initiatives in the Czech Republic, and quite possibly the most notable one. It has a clear and thorough code of ethics and methodology, and its fact-checking is backed by high-quality research that shows the reasoning behind every assessment of a politician’s claim (true/not true/misleading/impossible to verify). Demagog’s work has been recognized and awarded several times, including winning the Journalism Award in the category “Google Award for Innovative Online Journalism“.

In 2019, I had a second opportunity to assess Demagog`s improvements and, as well as the first time, recommended the organization to be accepted with some minor changes to the project`s website transparency about the organizational hierarchy and personal bios. The website has been updated accordingly and the website clearly lists all the necessary information. I then believe this assessment as such will then be an update on how the organization has fared in the last year.

As far as the media context of the Czech Republic, vast majority of the nation`s media is owned by the country`s wealthiest businessmen, and, one dares to say, oligarchs. As such, non-profit small initiatives increasingly gain importance as there, as opposed to large media houses, do not have to necessarily worry about their staff self-censoring themselves for the fear of losing their job position, nor are they influenced in their selection of topics and how these are portrayed by their top superiors. If only for this, I believe small initiatives, Demagog included, have their place on the country`s media landscape.

Concerning the political context, the rise of populism and the accompanying realization that really anything can be said as long as the audience (potential voters) likes it, with our Prime Minister Andrej Babis being the leader of applying this ruthless tactic, it seems more important than ever that politicans` claims are being fact-checked and our representatives are held accountable for what information they spread.

Socio-economically, the country is (as any country now, really) entering a period of high state debt, high budget deficits and potentially an onslaught of ridiculous state spending, defended by the leading political party in the sense that our country is going to „invest itself out of the crisis“. Regardless of whether this can even be true, now more than ever politican`s claims on how resources are going to be used, together with the real spending figures, need to be under the spotlight of both journalists and the public in general. I believe Demagog can have a valuable role to play in this regard as on of very few and the most established fact-checking organization in the Czech Republic,

As stated, Demagog has already started publishing its assessments in 2012 (as evidenced by the web archive Wayback Machine). However, the legal person Demagog.cz, z.s., ID 05140544, was founded in June 2016, after the project probably displayed a certain measure of viability and potential.

The entire team of Demagog is listed on its website, which is a positive development from my last assessment. All entries are accompanied by a photo and a short bio. With respect to the project leaders, I can imagine these bio could ideally be a little more extensive, especially when including other professional engagements.

I appreciate Demagog`s effort to branch out strictly from fact-checking to organizing workshops and educating in media literacy and see this as positive development and other potential sources of funding for staying afloat, as is the continuous goal of virtually any nonprofit organization in the country.

All our fact-checks are listed directly on our website: https://demagog.cz with some publications containing fact-checks of a number of claims made during the same speech, interview or debate.

To find past fact-checks, one can switch pages at the bottom of the list, search through pages of individual politicians covered (such as https://demagog.cz/politici/444), or use our API (https://demagog.cz/stranka/api-pro-vyvojare).

An Excel file with past fact-checked statements is attached.

I really do appreciate the complete dataset on fact-checks conducted by Demagog, going all the way back to 2012. Very simple and easy for me to transfer to Tableau and look at the aggregates for different time periods, parties or individual speakers.

Looking at the data for the year 2020, Demagog has so fard conducted 468 fact-checks as of June 9, 2020 (the last date data have been provided for by Demagog), with an average of 22 fact-checks per week. Looking at the timeline data, there are 4 weeks in the past 6 months that contain no conducted fact-checks, which can be either attributed to the fact that data uses dates of the fact-checked sources being published/medialized rather than the dates of fact-checks themselves, the staff capacities of Demagog or the unprecedented coronavirus crisis.

Considering the total volume and average amount of fact-checks being done each week, I consider the 4 weeks to be an exception rather than the rule and do not consider it serious enough to deem Demagog non-compliant with respect to this criterion.

As an organization, Demagog focuses strictly on fact-checking claims of politicians in various discussions or on social media. Inspecting the provided dataset, virtually all statements checked in one way or another are associated with matters of state and its legislature, economy, rule of law and other aspects of the political life in the Czech Republic, which I consider to be potentially impactful on the well-being of society and the public.

No such relationship currently exists. We accept no funding or donations from political parties or politicians and we are currently not receiving, nor have we received in the previous year, any funding or support from the state, public institutions or political actors, local or foreign.

As stated by the applicant, no connections to any political bodies, either through financing or personal affiliation, were identified. The Code of Ethics of Demagog further prohibits any public display of personal political preferences of the organization and its team members are prohibited from any political activity, incl. party membership or political movement membership/affiliation.

We receive no such funding. Our financing is described on our website: https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-je-projekt-demagogcz-financovan

Demagog has set up a transparent bank account at Raiffeisenbank (https://www.rb.cz/povinne-zverejnovane-informace/transparentni-ucty?mvcPath=transactions&accountNumber=9711283001&path=transactions&dateFrom=2019-01-01&dateTo=2020-07-06), showing all the money flowing in and out of the account. Looking at the data provided by the bank, there indeed is no mention of funding from any political sources (as proclaimed by Demagog).

Looking also at the available annual reports of the organization, I have not found any indication of Demagog lying and receiving political financing, therefore I deem it to be compliant with this criterion.

The fact-checked claims listed below, most of which are parts of broader discussions (links at the bottom of each fact-check), illustrate that whether we are checking statements made in an interview, in a tweet or a Facebook post, we apply the same basic approach:

1) Identify the various interpretations of the claim and their broader contexts;
2) Present data, ideally based on primary sources, and link to sources whenever they are available online;
3) Determine whether there is a reasonable interpretation of the claim that is supported by available data. If not, the claim is false;
4) If the claim is true, determine whether, when put into context, the claim does not lead the listener/reader to a false conclusion. If it does, the claim is misleading.

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/19381

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/19304

https://demagog.cz/diskuze/dividendy-pro-eu--odtekly-z-ceska-dva-biliony-korun

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/19018

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/18965

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/18935

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/18846

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/18611

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/18367

https://demagog.cz/vyrok/18267

I have analysed both the assessments and my randomised sample of fact-checks and can confirm that Demagog follows through on its methodology. Each assessment is explained in as much detail as possible with keeping in mind the relevance and availability of primary sources of facts and figures used in statements).

Looking then at the entire dataset, it is clear that Demagog chooses to fact-check all major political parties, with more attention logically dedicated to parties in power and currently holding executive positions and the legislative majority. A table summarising all fact-checks done and categorizing them according to the political party of the statement source can be found in the attachment.

While we employ no strict formula to ensure balance, we make sure that politicians from all parliamentary parties are covered in our publications, with an increased focus on those in executive positions. Our primary focus is on interviews and debates or debate segments, from which we simply draw all factual statements and check those regardless of perceived importance.

https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-hodnotime-metodika

As stated by Demagog and supported by the underlying data, it does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, although it logically directs more attention towards parties who are currently holding executive positions. Inspecting the data for the years 2019 and 2020 for example, Demagog has fact-checked claims by politicans from 11 different parties and other politicans who are not members of any political party.

On the linked website, Demagog sufficiently explains how it selects claims to fact-check, focusing on their relevance for the national audience (the organisation does not fact-check claims of local/municipal politicians) and the potential for verification. As mentioned, Demagog focuses somewhat more on claims made by politicans in executive positions as they have more responsibility for governing the country at a given point in time.

Analysing the assessment of statements provided by the applicant and other statements I picked myself, I can confirm that Demagog always follows the same process with its assessment, which is appropriately put in as much context as possible with respect to a given issue.

With respect to sources used for fact-checking, Demagog mainly uses official government statistics or international organizations and their data sources (e.g. Eurostat). None of the supplied assessments contained any information source that would be a private entity and whose integrity could potentially be questioned, i.e. calling for a statement on how or why the source could be biased.

As is stated in Demagog`s Code of Ethics, it prohibits both the organization or any of its team members from any political activity or affiliation. As evidenced by the records of its transparent bank account, it also does not receive funding from any political parties or movements.

Our code of ethics includes non-partisanship as one of the primary principles. Both employees and volunteers are required to disclose membership in political parties or political youth organizations and are barred from working in Demagog.cz if they become members or become employed or volunteer for such an entity.

https://demagog.cz/stranka/eticky-kodex-demagogcz

As evidenced and mentioned above, Demagog prohibits any of its team members from conducting any political activities and requires its staff to leave the team should they want to become politically active. 

Demagog is very thorough with its sourcing, always providing the URL to relevant documents, website, statements etc. Furthermore, it puts the issue at hand in context, commenting on the issue as a whole, even disclosing the internal train-of-thought of the fact-check.

Demagog most frequently uses primary sources such as official government documents or statistics. With respect to secondary sources, these are sometimes used for fact-checking historical events or other facts being misused by politicians in their statements, however, it bears mentioning that with respect to these it would have to be defined what actually could be the primary sources.

Demagog always tries to use numerous sources to support its assessment. Tracing various pieces of any statement to official governmental documents, another statement made by adifferent politician or any historical, sociological or economical piece of information back to the verifiable source is then a standard in Demagog`s assessments.

With respect to certain fact-checks, they could be a little more thorough, however, it is necessary to bear in mind that when using an official source of any factual information, it could possibly be inefficient to spend further time on locating another official source of the same information (in reality, ceratin institutions hold certain data so there might nor really often be one).

As with criterion 2.3, the analyzed fact-checks of Demagog rely on official national or international data and documents. No private source of evidence, where an identification of its private interest could reasonably be expected, was identified.

Demagog.cz is an independent organization, legally a registered association.

Record in public register: https://or.justice.cz/ias/ui/rejstrik-firma.vysledky?subjektId=938169&typ=PLATNY

As stated above, Demagog is an non-profit organization founded principally for the purposes of fact-checking. As the organization grew larger, it expanded its activities including e.g. workshops on media literacy.

The organization is properly registered in the Commercial Register of the Czech Republic. It also has its own transparent bank account where all transactions can be monitored by the public.

Financial information on our website: https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-je-projekt-demagogcz-financovan

Our accounts are not audited, the accounting requirements for our association are limited, but all financial transactions made and received by Demagog.cz are listed on our "transparent account" available to the public.

As stated, Demagog is an independent, non-profit organization. As such, it does not have to publish its full balance sheet according to Czech legislature (only its shortened version) and does not have the obligation to have its books audited.

Since Demagog is a non-profir organization, it does not have a beneficial owner and the only executive body of the organization is its Board, currently having 4 members. All information concerning the legal status of the organization is published on Demagog`s website. I would welcome if the information on organizational structure and current members of the Board were also included in full detail in the annual reports of the orgnization.

The existence of the transparent bank acccount then ensures that all donations received are properly registered and monitored.

Section "Spolek Demagog.cz" at https://demagog.cz/stranka/o-nas

The linked website clearly describes the organizational structure of Demagog, including the role of the organization`s Board (its only executive body), as well as bios of all team members and their positions in the hierarchy (coordinator/editor/analyst and others).

Section "Kdo připravuje Demagog.cz?" at: https://demagog.cz/stranka/o-nas

Section "Kdo připravuje Demagog.cz?" at: https://demagog.cz/stranka/o-nas

In response to assessor's feedback, we have somewhat expanded the biographies for Demagog's board members, incl. their current professional commitments and LinkedIn URLs where available. We are considering a revamp of this section of the website to allow for a more structured presentation.

The linked website lists all od Demagog`s team members and their short biographies. However, I can imagine that the biographies of the members of Demagog`s Board would somewhat longer and more detailed, including a mention of any other organization these individuals are working at. Alternatively, a link to LinkedIn profile could be provided, given of course that these profiles exist.

Example: The lead analyst of Demagog, Ivana Procházková, also claims to be working as a lawyer. Given that IFCN`s principles focus a lot on transparency and disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, I think it would be suitable to list other professional commitments of Demagog`s team members, provided they do not work for Demagog on a full-time basis.

The linked website lists all od Demagog`s team members and their short biographies. However, I can imagine that the biographies of the members of Demagog`s Board would somewhat longer and more detailed, including a mention of any other organization these individuals are working at. Alternatively, a link to LinkedIn profile could be provided, given of course that these profiles exist.

Example: The lead analyst of Demagog, Ivana Procházková, also claims to be working as a lawyer. Given that IFCN`s principles focus a lot on transparency and disclosure of possible conflicts of interest, I think it would be suitable to list other professional commitments of Demagog`s team members, provided they do not work for Demagog on a full-time basis.

UPDATE: I have reviewed the requested changes and can state that Demagog has properly listed professional commitments of its Board members. As stated by the applicant, further visual updates are underway and will further add to a clear and structured presentation of Demagog`s team.

Our contact page lists the email address and phone number of the project coordinator, plus a general team contact for any requests and queries to the organization: https://demagog.cz/stranka/kontakty

Users can also get in touch with us on Facebook via direct messages or comments: https://www.facebook.com/Demagog.CZ/

We encourage users to contact us when they find incorrect information in any of our fact-checks, if they are aware of additional data sources or if they simply have a suggestion on who and what to fact-check: https://demagog.cz/stranka/mam-vyhradu-k-hodnoceni-nebo-navrh-na-overeni-kam-se-mohu-obra

Demagog offers multiple options for the public of how to get in touch, with Facebook likely being the most used one. Users are also actively encouraged to get in touch in case they have any comments on individual assessments or Demagog`s methodology in general.

Our methodology: https://demagog.cz/stranka/jak-hodnotime-metodika.

A specific of Demagog.cz is that we largely focus on debates, speeches or interviews and their segments and fact-check all factual statements made during their course. Over the past 8 years we have checked on average more than 100 claims each month (our current average is around 60) and many more during election campaigns. As a result, we have not found it practicable to contact the speakers in reference to each claim and rather communicate with them and their offices when we are unable to find sufficient sourcing for an assessment of their claim.

As this is the third time I`ve had the chance to assess Demagog`s methodology, I believe it has, over the years, been expanded and is now very thorough. Both the assessment process and the underlying logic behing the process are sufficiently explained, reminding the public to take the methodology in consideration when looking at individual assessments.

Demagog primarily focuses on claims of politicians from nationally televised debates or their statements on social media. As stated, Demagog primarily checks claims of politicians with national importance and only rarely focuses on regional or municipal politics (e.g. before regional elections). As stated by Demagog in its methodology, relevance is one of the key factors for selecting statements to be fact-checked.

As stated earlier, I deem Demagog`s sourcing to be thorough and detailed, using as many relevant links to official documents, statistics etc. to fully explain the issue at hand in context. The assessment`s reasoning is fully explained, whether the statement fact-checked is assessed as correct, misleading, incorrect or impossible to verify. Even with respect to claims assessed as incorrect, Demagog tries to explain why an incorrect statements might have been used (either on purpose or because politicians often rely on questionable sources of information that support the narrative or message they try to pass along to their target voter group).

As with other similar criteria, I believe that Demagog`s sourcing complies with high standards set out by the Code of Principles. Looking at fact-checks on statements made by politicians from different parties in the researched sample, Demagog applies the same logic and procedure with respect to each fact-check. No apparent bias, either in selection of sources or the tone and language used in the assessment, was identified.

As stated by Demagog, it does not communicate with the sources of statetements to be fact-checked unless they need to in order to gain additional information in order to assess a claim properly.

We encourage readers to make suggestions on who and what to fact-check on our website: https://demagog.cz/stranka/mam-vyhradu-k-hodnoceni-nebo-navrh-na-overeni-kam-se-mohu-obra.

Demagog actively encourages its users to reach out with comments or questions regarding both individual assessments and the methodology of the assessment process in general. Users are also informed on which kinds of claims Demagog assess and which claims cannot be reasonably be expected to be assessed (e.g. trivial facts, opinion-based statements).

Corrections page on our website: https://demagog.cz/stranka/mam-vyhradu-k-hodnoceni-nebo-navrh-na-overeni-kam-se-mohu-obra

Demagog has a clear and thorough corrections policy, actively inviting ita users to challenge both the organization`s assessments and methodology. All necessary information is published on the linked website, including a step-by-step description of how correction requests are handled.

I also appreciate the published list off all corrections conducted, which show how many corrections were made and which politicians and their statements these corrections were associated with. There is also a link pointing to the assessment methodology which clearly states which claims Demagog assesses, which it does not and under what conditions.

As described above, the corrections policy of Demagog is fairly thorough and interconnected with the assessment methodology of the organization.

Over the past 12 months we received 3 correction requests which resulted in changes of assessment. Correction requests have lately took the form of Facebook comments, sometimes by the speakers themselves arguing for the veracity of their claims, to which we respond using the same means while applying our standard corrections process.

Examples of recent corrections (short note at the end of each fact-check):
https://demagog.cz/vyrok/19210
https://demagog.cz/vyrok/19265

The corrections provided clearly specify why a correction was made and how, including a mention of who submitted the correction request. It bears mentioning that the correction is at the bottom of the page and moving it upfront would make it more visible and transparent that the statement was evaluated incorrectly in the beginning. I would also appreciate the information on when exactly the correction was made to have an idea of how long it took Demagog to make the correction.

Section "IFCN" at https://demagog.cz/stranka/o-nas

On the linked website, Demagog clearly demonstrates that it is a signatory of IFCN`s Code of Principles. It also states that it is committed to adhere to the IFCN Code and points users to the complaints page.

Not Applicable

As a standalone fact-checking organization, this criteria does not apply to Demagog.