We are a legally registered company with the number 559227-6371 at the Swedish Bolagsverket (Swedish Companies Registration Office). This, as well as the fact that we are a factchecking organization, is apparant on our website here: https://kallkritikbyran.se/om-oss/

The organization is a registered company. It is a stand-alone independent organization.

1. The organization Källkritikbyrån started Oct 2019, but it is a continuation of the now cancelled Viralgranskaren. The three founders of Viralgranskaren have founded Källkritikbyrån and that has been covered in Swedish media:

https://sverigestidskrifter.se/publicerar/jag-var-kvar-in-i-det-sista-pa-metro-for-att-forsoka-radda-viralgranskaren/

https://www.dagensmedia.se/medier/dagspress/trion-bakom-viralgranskaren-startar-byra/

https://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/kallkritikbyran-tar-over-jakten-pa-fejk-pa-natet/

Viralgranskaren was started March 2014 and ended with the collapse of Metro in Aug 2019. We applied for and was accepted as a signatory of IFCN Code of principles twice and would have applied for a third year, but the crisis put a stop to that. We, the three founders of Viralgranskaren, Jack Werner, Linnéa Jonjons and Åsa Larsson, decided to start over and try to save Viralgranskaren and the only way in the end turned out to be to start over with Källkritikbyrån. We started factchecking early December and published our first piece on 10 Dec: https://kallkritikbyran.se/stroke-mejl-fran-2004-gar-igen-pa-svenska-viralsajter/

2. As of today no one is employed in the company but that will change during this spring. The plan is for Åsa Larsson to be employed as editor and the other two founders Jack Werner and Linnéa Jonjons will help in different ways. 

3. Factchecks, cooperations with other media, lectures and producing guides and helpful tools for the general public to become better at factchecking things.

4. The coming year our goal is to be able to keep factchecking the Swedish social media scene and raise awareness of media literacy issues. We also want to see if we can find the answers to some of the big questions of our time, for example how do we make internet a more tolerable place for more people?

This organization originates from Viralgranskaren, a well known and respected initiative that was the first fact checking organization to be compliant by the IFCN in Sweden, and in the Nordics. The track record of Viralgranskaren is extremely good. Even though they were part of the publishing company Metro, and the journalists employed at Metro experienced various difficulties over a substantial time period, while Viralgranskaren existed, it remained a trustworthy source in Sweden.

The stand alone company Källkritikbyrån was started in 2019 by the founders of Viralgranskaren, and the first fact check available on the site was published the 10th of December. So far 22 stories have been published, which is below the required 26 stories (criteria in effect this June).

Three journalists are listed on the website, but the signatory states in the application that it so far does not have any employees.

The organization publishes fact checks, give talks and have the ambition to provide the audience with how-to guides regarding fact-checks. Furthermore, the plan is to be able to start or contribute to debates.

We think every factcheck we've done with Källkritikbyrån has an impact on either indivduals who are the focus of some online rumour or society as a whole, where groups spread lies either about each other or about some aspect of life or structures of society. All of them is of public interest and some of these could potentially be harmful such as incorrect health advice, propaganda or racism. Even the "joke gone bad" shows the problems for individuals when they become the focus of viral stories with incorrect facts. Also trust between people diminishes when you spread falsehoods and the feeling of that you can't trust anything.

The signatory has provided an excel sheet with links to 19 stories. Topics are varied, however with an emphasis on the new Corona virus. The signatory states that all provided fact checks are of public interest. I agree, 100% of these stories are in the public interest. Not only do they assess false claims, they also expose on a regular basis which Swedish media outlets that have published this misinformation. This aspect is also important concerning public interest, and will (in time) put pressure on Swedish legacy media to be more careful with what they publish. Several fact checks have a distinct service journalism feature, as "news you can use" which strengthens the signatory in terms of having an impact on the welfare and well-being of individuals with their stories. 

Over the past three months, the majority of the stories cover different aspects of the Corona crisis. 

False claims are assessed by providing links to correct information, quotes from interviews with experts and an account for where the original statement came from, if a statement has been taken from it's original context. Stories contain images and as previously mentioned an account for where the false claim has been published.

As noted in the comment for 1.3, several stories take a "service journalism" turn on the corona crisis, guiding the individual audience member in topics such as false health, consumer product, or company related advice. 

Currently, we are not approaching an election in Sweden, therefore, the number of stories assessing political claims are minimal.

We are not controlled by the state or political parties and have no commercial, financial and/or institutional relationship to government or politicians.

The company appears completely independent. It does not seem as if they earn any money yet, and no sponsors are listed on the website. 

No sponsors and no sources of funding are listed. Furthermore, the signatory states that nobody is currently employed. Perhaps this has to do with the absence of revenues.

Our model is to check viral claims. We have not, as some other factchecking organizations, focused on factchecking quotes from politicians or powerful people for example. A more statement-oriented style of factchecking would have made more claims more easy to categorize into different political camps. Viral claims don't always reflect sides in political issues that clearly and when they do the right wing sphere has a lot more material that goes viral. But we try to pick from all sides.

We adhere to the code of conduct for journalists in Sweden: https://www.sjf.se/yrkesfragor/yrkesetik/yrkesetiska-regler

And the the ethics code for publicists, in English here: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/j6075/edit/ethiccodes/SWEDEN.html

10 examples:

The Sweden democrats has brought a very clear division to Swedish politics. People are generally either very pro och very anti SD. In this article we look at two claims, one made by the party leader of the Sweden democrats during a radio program, and one meme based on an incorrect quotation deriving from the same radio show. The latter is spread gleefully by opposers of SD.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/vad-sa-jimmie-akesson-egentligen/

Here we take a look at a false claim made about the Finnish prime minister and it's trail through Swedish media. The idea of a shorter work day and/or week seems to be especially appealing to more socialist groups and we notice that red alternative media picked this up.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/slarv-i-europa-om-tiden-i-finland/

We've also checked right wing sites and organizations:

https://kallkritikbyran.se/nej-sjukvarden-har-inte-infort-dodsblanketter/

https://kallkritikbyran.se/region-dalarna-djupt-olyckligt-att-sant-har-far-spridning/

And checked one image that ended up in the climate debate:

https://kallkritikbyran.se/skrapig-buss-blev-slagtra-i-klimatdebatten/

We use the same methods as standard, we tell the reader where we encountered the claim, whether it's been spread by Swedish users, try to account for how viral the claim is and in which context it's been spread. Then we backtrack it to the source, ask relevant experts about the facts and present them in the article.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/blod-pa-toalett-i-usa-oroar-svenska-facebook-anvandare/

https://kallkritikbyran.se/stroke-mejl-fran-2004-gar-igen-pa-svenska-viralsajter/

https://kallkritikbyran.se/gammal-varning-om-kamknivar-sprids-pa-nytt/

https://kallkritikbyran.se/sa-sprids-ryktena-om-coronaviruset-i-sverige/

Sometimes we start out with the assumption that there's something fishy and find out that it's in fact true and then we answer our readers with what we've found out, as in the case of the fraudster wanting you to use a payment app:

https://kallkritikbyran.se/en-swish-varning-att-ta-pa-allvar/

The published fact-checks have all been published by the same person. She follows the same template for each story, where a claim is presented using links and images, experts confirm or falsify a claim, links are provided to facts or to previously published information and the conclusion is clearly explained. 

Stories appear mostly to be responses to viral claims that have been picked up by Swedish media outlets, and during this time period, stories revolve around the Corona virus. There is a clear tendency to select claims from extreme far right wing websites or social media accounts. The political nature of the actual stories are however low or the political nature of the topics are not the primary focus of the story. 

The signatory states in the application that the lack of political stories is also part of their intention. Källkritikbyrån states that they will not focus on fact checking quotes by politicians. The signatory does however provide a few fact checks based on things politicians have said or done. 

https://kallkritikbyran.se/var-journalistik/

The signatory mentions in the about section that it systematically will review false claims online and pass on the knowledge we have to the public. However, it is very hard to find the explanation of the methodology. It exists, but is well hidden at the bottom of the page and not included in the about section.

All stories published (22) has been reviewed. In my opinion, there are no red flags, as stated in the guidelines for assessors. The signatory mostly use primary sources and contacts them for interviews. Such sources can for example be the he chief epidemiologist at Sweden's Public Health Agency or the press officer of a company. Quotes from the interviews are provided. Secondary sources are also  used to back up a primary source. Most stories rely on several sources, and where they do not, it is a very clear cut case that only needs one source.

As previously stated, the applicant follows a sort of template for fact checks where links are provided, facts are presented and sources are contacted for quotes that can help falsify or verify a claim. 

I did not find explicit evidence of that the interests of a source is explained, however titles of sources are always provided, and for the published stories, I think that is sufficient. 

I will give you two examples for how sources' intentions are not explained explicitly. 

First example: In a story about a false chain letter about a grocery store, the disclaimer of the official grocery store's social media account is used as a source. Their motives are not explained, but of course it is in their interest to tell the truth about the false chain letter written in their name. The motives of those that created the false chain letter is not explained or analyzed, rather the chain letter creator's own words for why they are spreading false information, as a "fun thing" are provided. 

Second example: In a story about various viral corona virus advice, several images are provided showing the original true message, and images of how these original messages have been altered. Reading the story makes it very clear what is true and false, but the intentions of people that create the false images, or why people like to share false information in this manner are not explained.

In my opinion, explicitly explaining such intentions would be speculation, and therefore my assessment of this criteria is that the signatory is compliant.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/var-journalistik/

We've made changes under the segment "Medieetiska avvägningar" to clarify that the journalists writing for Källkritikbyrån cannot act in a way that will endanger the trust of our readers, specifically when it comes to our unbiased and independent journalism.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/var-journalistik/

There is no policy describing non-partisanship for the staff on the website.

There is no policy describing non-partisanship for the staff on the website.

Sources are in almost all cases provided with links, or in the case of interviews, titles are provided. 

I found a few images that were not linked to the original source, and some images were not always described with a source. This appears to be intentional to ensure anonymity of social media users and private citizens that have shared viral claims. This practice as part of the ethics for journalists, is implicitly described in the section "Our journalism". Thus, images without sources seems to consist of screenshots of false claims. It would perhaps be good to explain that this is the reason for why some images does not have proper sources in a more explicit manner.

Most stories have primary sources such as interviews with experts or organizations' public statements are quoted with clear references. 

If the story is composed more as a chronological guide towards finding the truth regarding a claim or proof of that an image is false, the narrative revolves around how the journalist come to the conclusion that the claim is false, by following leads on the internet. Links or explanations to these leads are provided to ensure replicability.

I did not find evidence of explanations for why a secondary source is used. It appears to me that secondary sources are used to further strengthen an argument, even though there are already primary sources used, or in the case that a viral false claim is fact checked, secondary sources are used to falsify the claim as the most often private individual sharing the claim is not contacted as part of the methodology of Källkritikbyrån.

In my opinion the signatory is therefore compliant.

At least two experts are contacted in each story, but not always. Two examples below shows that sometimes only one source is used, and in such instances it is relevant to only use one source: In the case of the fake image of australian fires for example, only one person was quoted (the creator of the original image). The same goes for the note written by a construction worker in Norway where the only source were the head of press of the construction firm who stated that the note was an unfortunate joke.

Interests of the actors quoted either in interviews or as links to other information are not explicitly mentioned. In several stories other fact-checking initiatives are quoted as part of the account for evidence of why a claim is false. This is used for international news or news from countries in the Nordics. Titles are provided and clear names of organizations, (in particular public agencies as many stories concern aspects connected to the Corona virus) are given for all sources. It does not appear necessary to explain the interests of the sources in more detail. 

We are an independent organization.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/om-oss/

The applicant is an independent organization.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/om-oss/

We've made a special segment "Finansiering" to detail our newly started company's funding and since we applied we've gotten for example ad coupons from Facebook and done a collaboration with the public service channel UR. We hope that these changes makes it clear for the reader how we are making money and intend to finance our business.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/om-oss/ 

No funding is detailed as of yet. Only a promise that this will happen in the future.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/om-oss/

Three journalists are listed as founders of Källkritikbyrån, one of them is the editor in chief.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/om-oss/

Professional biografies are provided for the three journalists.

On the first page we have a box for tips and in the bottom of most of the articles we encourage people to send tips.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/

https://kallkritikbyran.se/vad-sa-jimmie-akesson-egentligen/

The applicant clearly encourages the audience to make contact if they want a claim to be fact checked, have questions or want to point out that a correction is needed. The applicant also urges people to contact the journalists as invited speakers on topics related to fact checking.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/var-journalistik/

There is a section describing the methodology. This section is easy to understand, and the signatory explains on what grounds they will select and assess claims for their stories. Viral stories that appear in Swedish media or is shared on social media in Sweden forms the basis for the selection of claims that are fact checked.

The applicant states that the stories published are selected using classical journalistic news selection, what the journalists believe the audience want to know about society. They describe that viral spread of a claim is important as a basis for selection. From my review of the stories, this is visible. Källkritikbyrån always states that a claim has been shared in social media, or that it has been shared from an influential social media account, or in fact in legacy media.

Because the stories published are focused on showing that a claim is false, the signatory does not use a practice of showing support for the false claim in the stories. However, Källkritikbyrån often provides evidence of how the false claims could have been misinterpreted in the first place.

This criteria is about using the same standards to check evidence, and since most stories are based on claims or misinformation there is, as previosly mentioned a sort of "template" on how to go about when the journalists uncover that the claim is false. Several sources form the basis for the judgement of the claim, and every story follows the same pattern.  

This criteria concerns if the applicant seeks where possible to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence. 

It does not appear as part of the methodology of Källkritikbyrån to contact the people making viral false claims, and perhaps this is not even possible. 

I found one account for that Källkritikbyrån has tried to contact reporters, but did not get a response from them. However, they contact experts and organizations to build an argument against the false claims.

I do not think the criteria is relevant in this case.

We encourage readers to send us claims on our page and in our social media channels, for example:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kallkritikbyran/posts/113390343598317

https://www.facebook.com/kallkritikbyran/posts/113760496894635

Twitter: https://twitter.com/kallkritikbyran/status/1234819898188161025

We communicate with most of the people who are sending us tips directly, by answering their emails etc. We also outline our reasoning regarding viral stories here:

https://kallkritikbyran.se/var-journalistik/

How to send in claims to check is extremely visible. There is always a form for user interaction on the top right side of each story. The audience is encouraged to contact the journalists in the about section, and the section "Our journalism" has a description of what claims one can expect to get fact checked.

https://kallkritikbyran.se/var-journalistik/

Yes, this link is correct but it is rather hard to find. I would have expected to find it in the about section, rather than by clicking on this link found at the bottom of the page with the title "Our journalism".

There are a few sentences written about corrections in the well hidden methodology section. It appears as if corrections will be made as soon as someone contacts the signatory with a justified complaint and corrections will be noted at the bottom of a story.

We have as of yet not received a corrections request with Källkritikbyrån and regarding Viralgranskaren we updated a number of articles over the years. We only retracted one factcheck though. The reason was a claim by one of the interviewed persons for an article. He claimed that he had been misunderstood and meant something else. We took down the article and spent a week researching the new claim. It turned out inconclusive and we told our readers so in an article: https://web.archive.org/web/20161213151415/https://www.metro.se/artikel/delade-muslimer-ut-t%C3%A5rta-i-nordstan-f%C3%B6r-att-fira-terrord%C3%A5det-i-paris-xr

The applicant states that there has not been any requests for corrections yet.

This criteria is not relevant, as Källkritikbyrån is a new signatory.

This criteria is not relevant as the organization is a stand-alone organization.