https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=919036508 (Norwegian company registration authority) This is an application for renewal. There is no change in our purpose or organization. Here is the link to the relevant page of our website: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

There has been no major design-changes since our last application.

Faktisk.no is a registered organization.

1. Non profit Faktisk.no was launched July 5th 2017 as Norways first independent fact-checking organization to counter the spread of misinformation and disinformation in the public discourse.

2. currently 14 people work for Faktisk.no. There is one editor-in-chief/CEO, one news editor, four fact checkers, one video reporters, one project manager, one analytics manager and five teachers. We are hiring one fact-checker and one social media reporter at the moment. 

3. We fact check the public discourse on all platforms. We also have a school department for fact-checking, source criticism and information literacy for children and young adults. And we teach fact checking and investigative journalism to journalists, students e.t.c. This project is named "Tenk." (Think), and is a separate department within our organization, and not part of the editorial team. ( www.tenk.faktisk.no ). Last but not least, we have an insight and analytics department for better monitoring and understanding of information disorders in the Norwegian and Nordic public discourse. This latter initiative is part of the NORDIS project, building a Nordic EDMO hub together with Källkritikbyrän in Sweden, TjekDet in Denmark, Faktabaari in Finland and the universities of Aarhus, Bergen, Uppsala and Helsinki.

4. To do more of the above - and succeeding with building a sustainable insight and analytics department and NORDIS Hub. 

The applicant is a fact-checking organization. Over the years, it has expanded its operation, but still within the fact-checking area, such as offering lectures and special teaching activities for school children.

All of our fact checks, fact stories e.t.c are published at www.faktisk.no

We also post videos and simple debunks directly on facebook as posts: www.facebook.com/faktisk/ and on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQz_Ho0jf2x0CCHbVWRfySw/videos and on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/faktisk.no/

We also publish updated and case based learning resources in fact checking for teachers and schools at https://tenk.faktisk.no/ (the site for our school-project Tenk (Think)) and on the FB and Instagram pages for Tenk (https://www.facebook.com/tenk.faktisk / https://www.instagram.com/tenk.faktisk/)

We currently have a problem with our search-engine, making it hard to chronologically list our latest fact-checks and fact-stories. Therefore we've included them here from today and back to January 1st. 2023: 

Feil om offentlig ansatte i Finland

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zkxx9/feil-om-offentlig-ansatte-i-finland

Olav Thon misbrukes i Facebook-annonser - ble feilaktig meldt død

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0o666/olav-thon-misbrukes-i-svindelannonser-ble-feilaktig-meldt-dod

Hva kan vi lære av fortidens klimaendringer? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/06eex/hva-kan-vi-laere-av-fortidens-klimaendringer

Det stemmer at 100 000 flere er i jobb i privat sektor https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdppr/det-stemmer-at-100-000-flere-er-i-jobb-i-privat-sektor

Dette vet vi om «milliontrygdene» i Oslo https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zlee8/dette-vet-vi-om-milliontrygdene-i-oslo

Nei, vi er ikke på vei inn i en ny mini–istid https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z255d/nei-vi-er-ikke-pa-vei-inn-i-en-ny-miniistid

Ja, økt CO₂ har ført til en grønnere planet https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0qkx2/ja-okt-co-har-fort-til-en-gronnere-planet

Nei, sola styrer ikke klimaendringene https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jep9m/nei-sola-styrer-ikke-klimaendringene

De fleste anmeldelsene til Spesialenheten legges bort https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jeppw/de-fleste-anmeldelsene-til-spesialenheten-legges-bort

Jo, sammenhengen mellom CO₂ og klima er bevist mange ganger https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z3rmn/jo-sammenhengen-mellom-co-og-klima-er-bevist-mange-ganger

Hver fjerde nordmann er klimaskeptiker https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jx882/hver-fjerde-nordmann-er-klimaskeptiker

Amnesty Norges KI-flause går verden rundt https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/j1ddg/amnesty-norges-ki-flause-gar-verden-rundt

Misbrukes i falsk bitcoin-reklame https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jx8mg/misbrukes-i-falsk-bitcoin-reklame

Nei, FN vil ikke avkriminalisere sex mellom voksne og barn https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/j1dmw/nei-fn-vil-ikke-avkriminalisere-sex-mellom-voksne-og-barn

Nei, det er fortsatt ikke grafénoksid i koronavaksinen https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z5xm6/nei-det-er-fortsatt-ikke-grafenoksid-i-koronavaksinen

Over 49 000 bygninger trenger bedre sikring mot skred https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jn293/over-49-000-bygninger-trenger-bedre-sikring-mot-skred

Nei, Norge svelger ikke fem EØS-rettsakter per arbeidsdag https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z96wn/nei-norge-svelger-ikke-fem-eos-rettsakter-per-arbeidsdag

Truer TikTok rikets sikkerhet? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0vpd2/truer-tiktok-rikets-sikkerhet

Desinformasjon om barnevern spres i Norden https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zml9r/desinformasjon-om-barnevern-spres-i-norden

Falske bilder av Trump-arrestasjon sprer seg på Twitter https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0gp5g/falske-bilder-av-trump-arrestasjon-sprer-seg-pa-twitter

Er virkelig nordmenn mindre lykkelige enn resten av Norden? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z41mv/er-virkelig-nordmenn-mindre-lykkelige-enn-resten-av-norden

Feil om prissjokk for boligeiere fra Finansavisen https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z827x/feil-om-prissjokk-for-boligeiere-fra-finansavisen

Hvor vanlig er straffavbrudd? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/j7lvl/hvor-vanlig-er-straffavbrudd

Flere feil om norsk innblanding i Nord Stream-sabotasjen https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zw8np/flere-feil-om-norsk-innblanding-i-nord-stream-sabotasjen

Reinen har mindre enn 40 prosent av landarealet å beite på https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zpd11/reinen-har-mindre-enn-40-prosent-av-landarealet-a-beite-pa

Miljøaktivister har rett om utslipp fra Equinors olje https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0o6r9/miljoaktivister-har-rett-om-utslipp-fra-equinors-olje

Hva den ferske overgreps- og voldsundersøkelsen forteller oss https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jyy9e/hva-den-ferske-overgreps-og-voldsundersokelsen-forteller-oss

NRK-glipp om størrelsen på amerikansk Ukraina-støtte https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zkx94/nrk-glipp-om-storrelsen-pa-amerikansk-ukraina-stotte

Ett år med desinformasjon, krigsløgner og falske narrativ https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/06emn/ett-ar-med-desinformasjon-krigslogner-og-falske-narrativ

Slik har desinformasjonen om krigen endret seg https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z25mo/slik-har-desinformasjonen-om-krigen-endret-seg

Jon Almaas misbrukes i falsk bitcoin-reklame https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdp8w/jon-almaas-misbrukes-i-falsk-bitcoin-reklame

Hvor god er den norske strømstøtten? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jep1m/hvor-god-er-den-norske-stromstotten

Insekter som menneskemat – er det farlig? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zle9m/insekter-som-menneskemat-er-det-farlig

Er det flere ungdommer som bruker narkotika? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z5xy6/er-det-flere-ungdommer-som-bruker-narkotika

Flere feil i «rett i dass»-regnestykket til Borten Moe https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0qk62/flere-feil-i-rett-i-dass-regnestykket-til-borten-moe

Færre sykehjemsplasser med eldreminister https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0rgoy/faerre-sykehjemsplasser-med-eldreminister

Nei, det ligger ikke an til en tidobling av nordmenn over 90 innen 2060 https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/j1d8w/nei-det-ligger-ikke-an-til-en-tidobling-av-nordmenn-over-90-innen-2060

Kan man stole på kreftprøven av livmorhalsen? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z3ron/kan-man-stole-pa-kreftproven-av-livmorhalsen

Nei, Oslo har ikke landets beste sykehjemsdekning https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z965n/nei-oslo-har-ikke-landets-beste-sykehjemsdekning

Nei, Norge har ikke den aller laveste arbeidsledigheten i Europa https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jn2e3/nei-norge-har-ikke-den-aller-laveste-arbeidsledigheten-i-europa

Enkelte oppdrettsselskaper kan måtte betale over 100 prosent i skatt https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0vpm2/enkelte-oppdrettsselskaper-kan-matte-betale-over-100-prosent-i-skatt

Nei, det stemmer ikke at 97 prosent av tungtransporten sklir forbi grensekontroll https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0gpeg/nei-det-stemmer-ikke-at-97-prosent-av-tungtransporten-sklir-forbi-grensekontroll

Hekkans upresist om Salikatts ølreklame på sosiale medier https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zmlxr/hekkans-upresist-om-salikatts-olreklame-pa-sosiale-medier

Hvit måned – har det effekt på sikt? https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z82nx/hvit-maned-har-det-effekt-pa-sikt

Norge tjener store penger på Putins krig https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z41ov/norge-tjener-store-penger-pa-putins-krig

Yes, the applicant has published on average 2 or more fact-checks a week, which is well above the threshold. For this assessment, I noticed it was not possible to get an overview of the published stories for the 6-month period on the website of Faktisk.no. However, the applicant has provided links to the published fact-checks with their application. This list of published articles made it possible to do the assessment. 

My assessment of a randomised sample of published articles is that the topics of the fact-checks are all in the interest for the Norwegian general public. The variation of topics is impressive and encompasses politics, war, the pandemic, climate change, issues regarding the oil industry, domestic violence, to name a few.

Faktisk.no is a non partisan and independent non profit media company. We do not receive direct operational funding or support from foreign or local state or political actors over the previous financial year. However, we are owned by six of Norways largest media companies, where the state owned public broadcaster NRK is one of them.

We did apply for, and receive, approximately 1,4 MNOK from the Innovation and development grant scheme given by the Norwegian Media Authority as part of the Norwegian Media support scheme. This grant was given as support for building our new insight and analytics department. More about these scheme: https://www.medietilsynet.no/mediestotte/innovasjons--og-utviklingstilskudd/

We are also part of the nordic EDMO-hub NORDIS, which is funded by European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) grant money. EDMO is an independent consortium funded by the EU. More about EDMO here: https://edmo.eu/edmo-at-a-glance/

Our school project "Tenk", which is a different department within our organization, received in 2022 a government grant over the state education budget. This grant will probably continue. Tenk is however a separate part of Faktisk, not involved in the editorial fact-checking work. Their finances are also separate at large.

Regardless of this, all grant providers, donors and owners must abide our organization being independent, transparent and non-profit. We do not accept external guidelines or requirements for how our school project (or the rest of the organization) prioritizes or performs its work. Tenk follows the same strict ethical code of conduct as the rest of the organization. Editorial independence is secured by law in Norway, and by the various ethical code of conducts accepted by all established media organizations and their editors. 

The organization is independent and receives funding from the major Norwegian media companies (including PSM). Sources of funding is stated on a separate and informative webpage.

We have several pages about us and our organization: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss (About us) / https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi (How we work) / https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret (Editorial staff and the board) / https://www.faktisk.no/finansiering (Finances).

These page provides full information about: Our owners, the editorial staff, the school project Tenk (Think), our board of directors, our finances, our articles of association, a translation of the Fact-checkers code of principles, our internal ethics rules for Faktisk.no e.t.c.

The first "About us" page begins by explaining our commitment to free and independent journalism, and how we are bound to follow the ethical code of practice for the Norwegian press, the Norwegian editors code of conduct, the IFCN code of principles and our affiliations.

Also, we have a page explaining our finances in detail: https://www.faktisk.no/finansiering which discloses our full financial statements and accounting year by year from our launch in 2017. Also we try to keep a public update on our current accounting for the current year.

We have also a new website for our school project Tenk (www.tenk.faktisk.no), where we follow the same transparency as Faktisk: https://tenk.faktisk.no/om-oss (About us) https://tenk.faktisk.no/finansiering (Finances).

The applicant does an excellent job in explaining the different collaborations they have including statements of sources of income.

Nei, det stemmer ikke at 97 prosent av tungtransporten sklir forbi grensekontroll https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0gpeg/nei-det-stemmer-ikke-at-97-prosent-av-tungtransporten-sklir-forbi-grensekontroll

Nei, Oslo har ikke landets beste sykehjemsdekning https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z965n/nei-oslo-har-ikke-landets-beste-sykehjemsdekning

Flere feil i «rett i dass»-regnestykket til Borten Moe https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0qk62/flere-feil-i-rett-i-dass-regnestykket-til-borten-moe

NRK-glipp om størrelsen på amerikansk Ukraina-støtte https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zkx94/nrk-glipp-om-storrelsen-pa-amerikansk-ukraina-stotte

Flere feil om norsk innblanding i Nord Stream-sabotasjen https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/zw8np/flere-feil-om-norsk-innblanding-i-nord-stream-sabotasjen

Feil om prissjokk for boligeiere fra Finansavisen https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z827x/feil-om-prissjokk-for-boligeiere-fra-finansavisen

Nei, det er fortsatt ikke grafénoksid i koronavaksinen https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z5xm6/nei-det-er-fortsatt-ikke-grafenoksid-i-koronavaksinen

Nei, FN vil ikke avkriminalisere sex mellom voksne og barn https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/j1dmw/nei-fn-vil-ikke-avkriminalisere-sex-mellom-voksne-og-barn

Det stemmer at 100 000 flere er i jobb i privat sektor https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jdppr/det-stemmer-at-100-000-flere-er-i-jobb-i-privat-sektor

Olav Thon misbrukes i Facebook-annonser - ble feilaktig meldt død

https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/0o666/olav-thon-misbrukes-i-svindelannonser-ble-feilaktig-meldt-dod

The selection above show in our opinion our diverse and impartial fact-checking, based on current affairs, virality and the criterias and methodology described. We left our scale behind in 2021 and are focusing on a written conclusion instead. This to have more focus on the context and often complexity of a fact-check, and not on the color of the rating (less polarizing).

We also publish a large number of so called fact-stories ( https://www.faktisk.no/sjangere/artikkel ), providing in depth or background on topics regarding current misinformation and disinformation. These does not necessarily conclude like a standard fact-check - however they follow the same strict rules regarding high standards, impartiality and non bias. During the pandemic, this format has in large been preferred on covid-related matters, as it has been about science in progress with far to many unknowns. The same goes for covering the Ukraine war, which has broadened our scope into verification as part of fact checking. 

The majority of the fact-checks are ambitious, based on multiple sources both primary and secondary. It does not appear as if the fact-checks are impartial in any way. Claims are fact-checked from all sorts of politicians and the topics are very diverse. Often times, the applicant's fact-checks include interesting and impressive extra material such as data journalistic visualisations.

https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi (How we work)

Also, since we are part of the 3PFC-partnership with Facebook, we have a thorough description of how this works as well: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss/facebook  

Yes, there is a section that explains what types of claims that can be fact-checked.

I did not find passages in the fact-checks in the sample that discussed interests of those that make false claims. I did not see any discussion on commercial interests, except for the stories that focus on the oil-industry. Thus, I would not say this criteria is fulfilled, but I would not say it is not. Stating possible interests of those that make false claims without having proof of their interests could also be seen as specualtion.

In my assessment, I did not find any evidence of that Faktisk.no shows support for any party, any politician or political candidate, rather the opposite. 

We are completely open about key actors, boards, current and former staff e.t.c here: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss (About us)

Our staff and board: https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret (Editorial staff and board)

About the School-department and their staff: https://tenk.faktisk.no/om-oss

See also answer 1.6. 

There is a special page where all staff have bios. The independence of the organisation is clearly stated on several parts of the website.

There are in the majority of the assessed fact-checks multiple sources, both primary and secondary. There are links and plenty of visual material. 

I found one dead link in a story about the amount of energy it takes to produce Hydrogen. Apart from that dead link, the number and selection of sources are impressive ranging from public authorities, companies, scientists, and those that have made the claim in the first place to name a fww.

Yes, the sources are mostly primary. I only found a very small number of fact-checks based on secondary sources only, such as summary articles with aggregated fact-checks on the war in Ukraine or on the covid-19 vaccine often presenting a collection of previously published fact-checks of the applicant.

Yes, multiple sources are used, and often additional public data has been analysed and compiled into visualizations creating a rich material that accompanies primary sources. In only one case did I find a fact-check that did not use more than one source. It was a story about domestic violence, that more took on the form of an interview with the lead scientist of a report.

Yes, I would say this criteria is fulfilled. In only one case, there was an article that was made together with the Journalism department at OsloMet, and here the researchers were not named in the article there was only a reference to the department and it was not clear how these researchers helped out in creating the story.

We are an independent organization. This is the link to the Norwegian Central Coordinating Register for Legal Entities: https://w2.brreg.no/enhet/sok/detalj.jsp?orgnr=919036508

Yes, the applicant is a registered organiations. Furthermore, on the bottom of every page the registration number of the organisation is provided. 

Here is the link to our "About"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss

Here is the link to our "Finance transparency"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/finansiering

Yes, there is a separate page stating the funding.

Here is the link to our "About"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/om-oss 

Here's the link to our organizational structure: https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret

This is the place where the staff are listed.

On top of the list is myself, who currently serves as editor in chief (but normally functions as news editor), and under the headline «Redaksjonen» you'll find the four members of our newsroom (they are listed both as fact checkers, journalist and video journalist), but in the end they're all fact checkers.

As of now, we're one editor and four journalists/fact checkers.

There is a section describing the editorial staff. It is somewhat unclear to me what the difference in tasks in the newsroom is between the roles "journalist and project leader", "journalist" and "fact-checker". This could perhaps be clarified in the section, this is how we work.

There is a section describing the editorial staff. It is somewhat unclear to me what the difference in tasks in the newsroom is between the roles "journalist and project leader", "journalist" and "fact-checker". This could perhaps be clarified in the section, this is how we work.

https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret 

Yes, the leadership is clear, however see comment for 4.3.

We inform and link to our contact details through a huge "Do you know of anything we should fact-check?" above the footer of every page - as well as in the corrections-section on our "How we work"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi

The details and emails to all our staff is provided here: https://www.faktisk.no/redaksjonen-og-styret

Also, the emails to all our fact-checkers are linked in their bylines in every fact-check.

Most of our daily dialog is on social media, through our fb-page https://www.facebook.com/faktisk

Yes, there are multiple opportunities to reach out to the staff at Faktisk.no 

This is the "How we work"-page: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi

This also links to a more thorough explainer about our Facebook Third Party Fact-checking Program partnership: https://www.faktisk.no/facebook 

There is an informative page that explains the method. Furthermore, there are several sections and one main page hat explains how Faktisk.no works with Facebook. 

The selection of topics that have been fact-checked is impressive. They seem to be based on that they have been viral in Norway or the world, or are often times based on that they have appeared in public debates. They are all very much in the interest of the general population with a careful consideration of the Norwegian context.

Yes, this depends on the kind of fact-check, but I found several stories where parts of a false claim was explained as true. The complexity of the stories makes it possible to actually distinguish between what is true and what is not in a more in-depth manner.

I did not find any evidence of that there would be differences between the methods used for fact-checks depending on political party of those that made a claim.

Those that made a claim seems to be almost always contacted for comments. Many times they have responded, sometimes in-depth.

As earlier mentioned, above the footer of every published fact-check and page there is ha huge encouragement to send us claims to check. Also we do in the dialog on social media and with a thorough description of our methodology in our methodology-page: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi

On Faktisk.no we ask readers to send us claims by e-mail: kontakt@faktisk.no and we receive claims through our active twitter account twitter.com/faktisk_n

Our footer has all the relevant links to both our contact mail, corrections, editor in chief e.t.c.

Yes, it is clearly described what the audience can expect if they send in claims they wish should be fact-checked. It is very easy to find contact details.

Our correction policy is thoroughly described in our methodology-section "How we work": https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi - and is also directly announced on our front page and on the footer of every page generated on Faktisk.no. The Footer also link to our ethical guidelines and a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles: https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten

When it comes to policies: Our "How we work" section ( https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi ) has a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles, and outlined the policy of article 5: A commitment to an Open & Honest Corrections Policy.

In our translation, we state: "We have a transparent corrections policy and follow it always. Our corrections are clearly marked and openly published in compliant with our corrections policy, to make sure our readers sees the correct version."

Also, as previously described, we outline our "House ethics rules" ( https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten ), which comes in addition to the Norwegian Press Association's Code of Ethics, which applies to us ( https://presse.no/pfu/etiske-regler/vaer-varsom-plakaten/vvpl-engelsk/ ). These bind us to fair treatment of all sources.

To comply to the standards of media outlets in Norway, our footer encourage readers to contact us if they have a complaint, linking to our correction policy. The footer also includes the name and email address to the editor-in-chief, as well as our general contact address. It also hyperlinks to the Norwegian Press Association's Code of Ethics, the Norwegian Editor's Association’s Code of Ethics, and to the IFCN Code Of Principles.

Also, we publish full bios and contact details for all our staff in the About us section. Every fact-check has a byline with the name and email link to the fact-checkers who wrote the article.

We also have a very active dialogue with our readers by email, Twitter and Facebook page - were the discussion is live almost 24/7.

In addition: Any changes or corrections in a fact-check into a separate section at the end of the fact-check (in example: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jy9mm/sa-mye-har-mdg-politikeren-floyet-pa-to-ar ), we also have added a separate change/correction logg, which can be followed both on our statistics-section or by RSS-feed: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

Yes, there is a clear and very informative description of how corrections are made and how to complain. 

My assessment is that the policy is met. The descriptions of what can be expected in terms of getting a claim fact-checked is very clearly explained.

Any changes or corrections in a fact-check into a separate section at the end of the fact-check (in example: https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/jy9mm/sa-mye-har-mdg-politikeren-floyet-pa-to-ar ), we also have added a separate change/correction logg, which can be followed both on our statistics-section or by RSS-feed: https://www.faktisk.no/endringer

All corrections and changes are dealt with this way, and minor disputes mostly solved without further issue.

The Norwegian Association's Code of Ethics, (https://presse.no/pfu/) which also applies to us, gives the public right to complain to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission. There has been one such complaints against us since our last assessment:

https://presse.no/pfu-sak/055-22/

The Commission acquitted us on all counts in this case. The process shows that we follow the policy accordingly.

Most cases for the Press Complaints Commission are publicly streamed for transparency - and generates media attention.

This is an article (and the stream) about this case: https://presse.no/pfu-nyhet/stream-og-saksliste-til-pfu-mote-22-juni/

We have, as far as we know, not received any complaints through IFCN. 

There have been corrections over the last 6-month period. The design of the website makes it easy to spot these corrections.

Our correction policy is thoroughly described in our methodology-section "How we work", also with the link to IFCNs complaints policy: https://www.faktisk.no/slik-jobber-vi.

This is also directly announced on our front page and on the footer of every page generated on Faktisk.no.

The Footer also link to our ethical guidelines and a translated version of the IFCN Code of Principles: https://www.faktisk.no/vedtekter-etikkregler-og-faktasjekkplakaten        

Yes, it is clear how to contact IFCN for complaints. I did however find a dead link to the IFCN regarding the previous assessments. 

We are not.

Faktisk.no does not belong to a parent media company.