FactWatch is an initiative for promoting Media Information Literacy (MIL) and raising awareness about misinformation, disinformation, fake news and rumors in Bangladesh. The center was established at the Department of Media Studies and Journalism (MSJ) at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB). The University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB) is a private university registered as a non-profit entity under the University of Liberal Arts Foundation in 2004.

Information about our organization’s legal status and objectives can be found here on our website : https://cutt.ly/Sd8346T

Compliant

1. FactWatch was established on November 1, 2017 as a project of the Department of Media Studies and Journalism (MSJ) at the University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (ULAB). It was initially funded by the American Center, Dhaka, for its one-year operation. 

Media literacy is a foundation of Journalism and Media Studies curriculum. FactWatch was initiated to practically engage students in learning about misinformation, disinformation, fake news and rumors, honing their communication skills and journalistic intuition. Our overarching aim is to create a local knowledge hub of Media Information Literacy (MIL) in Bangladesh. We aspire to prepare a generation of skilled fact-checkers who will be leaders in the news media industry in Bangladesh. At the same time, through this website and its social media pages, FactWatch intended to reach out the community with the service of debunking myths and combating misinformation.

2. We have 9 core team members: Editor-in-Chief, Technical Editor, Researcher, System Analyst, Office Assistant, and Fact-checkers (both full-time and part-time). Each semester, we accept 2-4 undergraduate student interns as fact-checkers, video storytellers, and graphic designers from the Media Studies and Journalism Department. Some of the interns who develops skill and passion about fact-checking, continue with us after their internship period. Our team profile can be accessed at: https://cutt.ly/uO6o38I

3. FactWatch is now run by Center for Critical and Qualitative Studies (CQS) of ULAB.  At the CQS, apart from formal website-based factchecking, we do various kinds of media information literacy programs, both at the university level and the community level. At the university, we do several workshops and awareness programs on misinformation, disinformation and malinformation with students in different times. At the community level, we take several initiatives to make people aware about rumors on social media. At the academic level, we designed a dedicated course on fact-checking in journalism which has been approved by University Grants Commission. We also have published academic papers op-eds and organize daylong seminars, workshops and conferences on media literacy.  As a unit of ULAB-CQS, FactWatch borrows resources from the journalism department and helps in capacity building to students and faculty. FactWatch has also started working as a Third-Party Fact-Checker (TPFC) for Facebook since May 2021.

4. Over the coming year, we hope to increase our reach by better engaging our audience. The IFCN signatory position and contract with Meta as a TPFC for Facebook, FactWatch has now been considered as an authentic and influential truth-teller in Bangladesh. We are still able to use this privilege given to us with utmost sincerity and honesty, which has been appreciated by people across the political and social positions. We are working with several civil society organizations, such as The Asia Foundation, USAID, The American Center, Article-19 and so on to combat misinformation. In coming years, we will continue this. We now have 9 team members which is more than double of the previous year, which has increased our capacity to a great extent. With such a stronger team, we intend to debunk more rumors on social media, specially on Facebook. We also intend to extend more robust partnerships with local and grassroots level organizations of Bangladesh to combat misinformation and spread the culture of fact-checking, through capacity building workshops and trainings.

1) All questions clearly and satisfactorily answered;

2) The number of people employed by FactWatch, the different roles within the unit.

3) The different activities that FactWatch carries out are clearly explained in their application;

4) FactWatch has several goals for the coming year, which are aimed at consolidating the work they are already doing. Others include continuing to raise the organisation's profile as a credible, go-to source in the media by partnering with corporate, civil society and community organisations, as well as continuing its awareness raising efforts on misinformation and disinformation.

Since June 2021, FactWatch has published at least 40 (forty) fact-checking articles every month, until now. Please visit fact-watch.org for more information.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

We are running this activity from an academic institute which is non-profit non-partisan and is committed to provide liberal arts education. Our organization does not have any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship to the state, politicians or political parties in Bangladesh (Our non-partisanship policy clearly mentions it here: https://cutt.ly/Od4rurM). We started this initiative with a small funding support from the American Center, Dhaka (a non-political entity that has declared commitment against misinformation) but eventually became self-sustainable as the funding period was over 2018. Since May 2021, FactWatch becomes a Third-Party Fact Checker (TPFC) for Facebook (Meta) which has been providing us financial and knowledge support for continuing fact checking activities. Apart from it, we have neither been receiving any funding or support from foreign or local state or political actors over the previous financial year, nor have our intention to receive so. Our non-partisanship policy clearly mentions it here: https://cutt.ly/Od4rurM  
                             

Fact Watch is a distinct project within the Department of Media Studies and Journalism at the University of Liberal Arts or ULAB a non-profit and non-partisan academic institution. ULAB does not have any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship to the state, politicians or political parties in Bangladesh. Their declaration on this issue in their application is clear and unequivocal on this matter as stated in their non-partisanship policy.

Not applicable

ULAB does not have any commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship to the state, politicians or political parties in Bangladesh. Their declaration on this issue in their application is clear and unequivocal on this matter as stated in their non-partisanship policy.

The following 10 fact-check articles will demonstrate the non-partisanship position of FactWatch:

1. প্রধানমন্ত্রীর পদত্যাগ সংক্রান্ত একটি বিভ্রান্তিকর খবর ভাইরাল- https://bit.ly/3uP2R4W

2. বহিষ্কৃত বিএনপি নেতা তৈমুর কি তারেক রহমানের বিরূদ্ধে অভিযোগ করেছেন?- https://bit.ly/34C5dcJ

3. বিএনপি-আওয়ামি লীগ সমর্থকদের সংঘর্ষের ভিডিওটি এক বছর আগের- https://bit.ly/3gOkn0M

4. তথ্য ও যোগাযোগ প্রযুক্তি প্রতিমন্ত্রীকে যুক্তরাষ্ট্রে ঢুকতে না দেয়ার গুজব- https://bit.ly/3gIfTc7

5. রাষ্ট্রপতির কাছে কি ক্ষমা চেয়েছেন খালেদা জিয়া?- https://bit.ly/3sEdZ1R

6. “লাইসেন্স বিহীন সরকার, এই মুহূর্তে বাংলা ছাড়”- শিরোনামে বিকৃত ছবি ভাইরাল- https://bit.ly/3gMvE1T

7. “ফাঁসির দড়িতে ঝুলানো হচ্ছে দেলাওয়ার হোসাইন সাঈদীকে” – দাবিটি বিভ্রান্তিকর- https://bit.ly/3oNSnyR

8. খালেদা জিয়ার বক্তব্যের ভিডিওটি বিকৃত- https://bit.ly/3BqK3dx

9. বিরোধী দলীয় নেতা রওশন এরশাদের মৃত্যু সংবাদটি গুজব- https://bit.ly/3oOkvCa

10. সাবেক সাংসদ গোলাম মাওলা রনি কি গ্রেফতার হয়েছেন?- https://bit.ly/3GSlS8N

These are fact-check contents related to various political figures of Bangladesh. Regardless of their political positions, FactWatch invariably uses all necessary techniques and follow the standardized pathway before jumping into the conclusion.In all cases mentioned here, FactWatch uses documentary proofs for each claims, regardless of whichever direction it leads to. For image and video verifications, FactWatch uses advanced and credible image search mechanism (such as TinEye or Google Image search) to debunk the claims. For documentary claims, FactWatch uses Google Advanced search techniques to determine the time, location of the claim. 

One interesting reaction from the stakeholders might well be shared here: in case of number 4 which concludes that the State Minister of ICT of Bangladesh was NOT denied his entry to the USA, this fact-check article has been shared at the same time both by the government parties and its critiques on their Facebook pages, claiming that the truth must prevail.

In its factchecks, FactWatch uses the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim. FactWatch has clear protocols in place to ensure objectivity, balance, and political neutrality in its fact-checking as stated in its methodology.

Please see the following links to learn more about the scope and methodology of our fact-checking: https://cutt.ly/Od4rcbf 

Compliant

The FactWatch scope and methodology is clearly explained and public facing. It explains how they select claims to check, how they consider the reach and importance of the claims they verify, what types of claims they focus on fact-checking, the data verification process, and how they ensure independence during the fact-checking, verification process itself and the ratings system. It has updated its rating system since the initial assessment with greater detail provided on what each rating means. FactWatch has provided transparency by clearly stating that it has updated its rating system and has also provided a link to access to the previous rating system.

I have reviewed a wider range of randomly selected published fact-checks and I am satisfied that FactWatch meets all the criteria and is fully complaint

I have reviewed a wider range of randomly selected published fact-checks and I am satisfied that FactWatch meets all the criteria and is fully complaint. FactWatch declares and shows no support for any political party, politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues. FactWatch does not cover political statements by Bangladeshi politicians unless they involve policy-level decisions and/or information which may impact the public.

Non-partisanship policy of FactWatch: https://cutt.ly/Id4rbGc 

FactWatch has a policy on non-partisanship on their website. It clearly sets out conditions to ensure non-partisanship and neutrality for its staff to adhere to as well as about how it ensures compliance of this policy through screening of staff, trainings of policies and quarterly ethics & policy reviews.

I have reviewed a random sample of FactWatch use of sources and I am satisfied that they met the necessary criteria. FactWatch continues to provide the source of all significant evidence used in their fact checks, providing all the necessary links and where links may have been removed from original source, they provide a screenshot of the evidence.

Additionally FactWatch provides links/references to past factchecks on the same topic.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

FactWatch continues to use the best available primary sources of evidence wherever suitable primary sources are available. Where suitable primary sources are not available, they explain the use of a secondary source instead. Where the link may have been taken down or removed, FactWatch provides a screenshot of the original source in the fact-check itself.

If necessary, FactWatch also verifies a claims authenticity by communicating or communicating with the primary source directly. (e.g., an individual, agency, group or journalist).

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

FactWatch checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence save where the one source is the only source relevant on the topic. The only evidence FactWatch accepts are from established popular and mass media, news agency, accredited publisher or journal etc.

Assessor has not come across a fact-check in which FactWatch has needed to explicitly identify in its fact checks the relevant interests of the sources it uses where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.

FactWatch is the fact-checking section run by University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh (parent organization). Details can be found here: https://cutt.ly/Yd4rTVj 

FactWatch is a fact-checking section of a private university (ULAB). They have shared proof registration of this organizational status and have provided the details on the website.

About FactWatch:

https://cutt.ly/Yd4rTVj 

About FactWatch:

https://cutt.ly/Yd4rTVj 

FactWatch has been under a Non-Disclosure Agreement with Meta which does not allow us to disclose anything about the contract in public. That is why we put a rough financial estimation instead of the full detail of the funding.

FactWatch is a fact-checking section of a private university (ULAB) in Bangladesh. They have shared proof of this organizational status. They have a page on their website on the organisations that have donated to FactWatch.

As a non-profit, they should be transparent and disclose how much funding they have received from each donor. Could FactWatch provide a bit more detail about their funding on their website? If not, explain why?

FactWatch submitted a request for a waiver for criterion 4.2 which has been reviewed by myself and IFCN and appears comprehensive

FactWatch team and methodology would succinctly answer these questions:

FactWatch Team: https://cutt.ly/4PuaPC3

FactWatch Methodology: https://cutt.ly/9d4rSXu 

The organizational structure of the FactWatch team provided on the website in both Bangla and English. The applicant has a dedicated page where all its team members biographies are clearly listed and their roles are briefly mentioned, with all the staff contact emails provided.

In the methodology section contains a small section where they identify who is involved in the fact-checking process and how the process is undertaken through collective decision-making. If there is any disagreement on the factchecks, it also states how this would be resolved and by whom.

FactWatch Team: https://cutt.ly/4PuaPC3

Names with bios, picture and contact information such as email address is easily accessible.

On the topmost bar of the homepage, where we are encouraging users to communicate with us via email or Facebook page.

https://fact-watch.org

Apart from it, we encourage users to communicate with us at the bottom of every fact-checking article we publish

On the topmost bar of the homepage, FactWatch encourages its users to communicate with their team via email or their Facebook page.

At the bottom of each factcheck, they encourage users to communicate with them as well.

FactWatch scope and methodology: https://cutt.ly/9d4rSXu 

FactWatch scope and methodology: https://cutt.ly/9d4rSXu 

A section on Third-Party Fact-checking is added now.

The applicant's verification methodology is accessible. It gives the general verification method for news items, specifically how they select a claim to fact-check, the data verification steps that must be followed, the categories of reporting and an explanation of their rating system.

FactWatch has updated its rating system and has provided continued access to its past rating system. FactWatch made this change to the rating system to more accurately reflect the verification process its follows.

To provide total transparency, FactWatch should disclose in its methodology abouts its work checking Facebook content. They should have a detailed section/page/link about being a member of Facebook's Third Party Fact Checking programme. Explaining what the initiative is, how the process works, does it work alongside or separate to the fact-checking, how does FactWatch choose what to check, explicitly stating whether or not Facebook has control over what FactWatch checks etc.

FactWatch has updated its methodology section to include a detailed explanation about being a member of Facebook's Third Party Fact Checking programme and how it works.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

I have reviewed a random sample of fact-checks and I am satisfied that they meet the criteria.

We encourage our users to send us claim requests via emails and the our Facebook page. Our methodology explains what they can expect to be fact-checked. In case of any confusion, we explain our positions further to the readers (link shared before)

We also have a resource document adapted in Bangla based on the Poynter Institute’s online Hands-on Fact-checking: A Short Course that readers may find useful: https://cutt.ly/7d4r1Rs 

FactWatch encourages its users to sen us claim requests via email or via the Facebook page. The FactWatch methodology explains to users what they expect to be fact-checked as well as clearly stating what will not be fact-checked.

Corrections and Complaints policy of FactWatch: https://cutt.ly/Ad4r9QJ 

FactWatch has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily accessible on their website. In addition they have listed an overview with links of all corrections and updates made on their website so far.

Complains and Correction Policy and Methodology – both have been updated to explicitly reflect what we do and do not cover.

As part of our commitment to media literacy and community engagement, we intend to respond to all feedback we receive from readers. Apart from blatantly frivolous requests, we do intend take the time to inform readers about what is or is not fact-checkable and why we may not move forward with complains, corrections, or fact-check requests, citing relevant policies. The Corrections and Complaints policy has been updated to clearly reflect our response plan. This is now clearly stated in the Complains and Correction Policy on the website.

FactWatch does have a corrections and complaints policy that is easily visible and accessible on the website. The policy does explain the complaints and corrections policy process and how it is handled and reviewed internally by FactWatch, including those requiring revised conclusions of a fact-check. They have also clearly explained what they do or do not cover and the process that will be implemented by staff on both the methodology and corrections and complaints policy.

We have not received any correction requests in the previous six months. However, we are committed to adhering to our corrections policy if the need should arise. Even though we have not received any correction requests, we have corrected a few fact-check articles on the basis of newer and updated information. The corrections are clearly mentioned in the posts, and as well as in the "Corrections and Complaints policy" page. Please find the detail at the bottom of the page: https://cutt.ly/Ad4r9QJ

No corrections request have been made in the previous six months.

The Corrections and Complaint policy of FactWatch has included this option, please see: https://cutt.ly/Ad4r9QJ

The Corrections and Complaint policy of FactWatch has included this option, please see: https://cutt.ly/Ad4r9QJ

The link of IFCN's complaint page is now provided

FactWatch has included a link to the IFCN website on its Corrections and Complaint policy.

There should also be a link to IFCN's own complains page where people can lodge a complaint about a signatory https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/complaints-policy

FactWatch has included a link to IFCN's own complains page where people can lodge a complaint about a signatory https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/complaints-policy

Not applicable

N/a