https://www.houjin-bangou.nta.go.jp/henkorireki-johoto.html?selHouzinNo=3011105010302

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/about/

(Translation from Japanese website)

“Operational Organization:

In December 2021, the organization launched its "Joho-Kensho JP (Information Verification JP)" project led by Chief Editor OHTANI Tomoya.

It had been operating as a voluntary organization, but changed its name to "LITMUS" in June 2022 to become a general incorporated association.

Organization Name:

LITMUS (Non-profit general incorporated association)

Location of Head Office:

Shinjuku Entre-Salon Bldg. 2F, 2-12-13, Shinjuku, Shinjuku Ward, Tokyo, JAPAN

Board of Directors:

OHTANI Tomoya, Representative Director

ANDO Miki, Director

NISHIMURA Haruko, Director"

LITMUS's webpage provides the information about its legal status both in Japanese and English, with a link to the website of National Tax Agency that lists corporation no. (which only comes in the Japanese-language). It is listed as a general incorporated association, a type of non-profit organization. The information is relatively easy to find within three clicks (Home - Menu - About us - organization). The explanation in English can be found from the link on the bottom of the "About us" page. 

LITMUS's webpage provides the information about its legal status both in Japanese and English, with a link to the website of National Tax Agency that lists corporation no. (which only comes in the Japanese-language). It is listed as a general incorporated association, a type of non-profit organization. The information is relatively easy to find within three clicks (Home - Menu - About us - organization). The explanation in English can be found from the link on the bottom of the "About us" page. 

1. LITMUS started its activities in December 2021 as "Joho-Kensho JP (Information Verification JP)" and changed its name to the current one in June 2022. As Japan's first media specializing in fact-checking, we aim to create a society where people are not misled by false information and to extend people’s understanding of fact-checking activities in Japan.

2. The site is managed by a total of six people: a chief editor, an assistant editor, three researchers, and a general manager.

3. We create and publish fact-checking articles on any information disseminated publicly, including information spread on the Internet, statements by public figures and celebrities, and media reports.

4. We plan to add interactive content that answers readers' questions and requests. We also plan to use opinion pieces and videos to promote and educate the public about fact-checking activities themselves, including what fact-checking is and the concept behind it.

(i) the information provided in the application form about the organization’s structure, motivation and purpose

The website of LITMUS clearly states that it is founded as a medium exclusively dedicated to fact-checking in Japan. According to the application, its purpose is to "create a society where people are not misled by false information" and to "extend people's understanding of fact-checking activities in Japan." In other words, the organization's motivation and purpose is clearly stated in the application form as well as on its website. 

However, in the application form, it states that it plans to "use opinion pieces" to promote fact-checking. This can be further clarified - if they are publishing opinion pieces, would that deviate from fact-checking operation in a strict sense, even if the opinion piece is related to fact-checking in general? This might be a nit-pick, but I would recommend that the board ask for further clarification. 

(ii) the assessor’s knowledge of its track record as an organization, as far as this is known

The applicant states in the application that the organization first started as "Joho-Kensho JP", which operated on a blogging platform "Note", before it changed its name to the current one. As far as I know, and clearly stated in LITMUS's website, one of the founder of this organization had previously conducted fact-checking activities on Twitter, although this information is not presented in the application form. But by reading through its website, its track record seems to be well explained, and it aligns with my knowledge of the history of this organization.

One thing that seems misleading to me is that the applicant claims that LITMUS is "Japan's first media specializing in fact-checking." To my knowledge, FIJ has been operating since June 2017 according to its website (https://fij.info/about). InFact, another Japanese organization, has been operating a fact-checking unit since October 2019, according to its website (https://infact.press/organization/). There used to be Go-Hoo, a fact-checking initiative. However, FIJ is technically an organization that supports fact-checking activities in Japan in general in collaboration with other initiatives, and InFact's fact-checking unit is part of a broader media house. In this vein, the applicant's claim that it is "Japan's first media specializing in fact-checking" might not necessarily be false, but I would seek more clarification on this point to not mislead audiences who may not be familiar with these backgrounds. Again, this might be a nit-pick, but I would recommend that the board ask for further clarification.

(iii) the media, political, socio-economic and cultural context of the country

Japan is a country with 11 registered political parties as of July 2022. The coalition of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito party holds around 60 % of seats in the House of Representatives. Both the ruling and opposition parties are active on social media, but the conservative main party has been seen as more actively utilizing online platforms, including alternative video-hosting services, to engage with conservative, right-wing voters, which was particularly the case under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Recently, some politician who were close to assassinated Abe came under criticism for their racist and anti-LGBTQ remarks. In the past year, there has been a significant number of false claims and circulating around the issue of Abe’s assassination. Issues surrounding politics in Okinawa tends to attract national attention around the elections and therefore become a battle ground of combating mis- and disinformation. 

In sum, I marked this section as compliant, but further clarification on the points underlined may be beneficial for the board to make a decision.

(i) the information provided in the application form about the organization’s structure, motivation and purpose

The website of LITMUS clearly states that it is founded as a medium exclusively dedicated to fact-checking in Japan. According to the application, its purpose is to "create a society where people are not misled by false information" and to "extend people's understanding of fact-checking activities in Japan." In other words, the organization's motivation and purpose is clearly stated in the application form as well as on its website. 

However, in the application form, it states that it plans to "use opinion pieces" to promote fact-checking. This can be further clarified - if they are publishing opinion pieces, would that deviate from fact-checking operation in a strict sense, even if the opinion piece is related to fact-checking in general? This might be a nit-pick, but I would recommend that the board ask for further clarification. 

(ii) the assessor’s knowledge of its track record as an organization, as far as this is known

The applicant states in the application that the organization first started as "Joho-Kensho JP", which operated on a blogging platform "Note", before it changed its name to the current one. As far as I know, and clearly stated in LITMUS's website, one of the founder of this organization had previously conducted fact-checking activities on Twitter, although this information is not presented in the application form. But by reading through its website, its track record seems to be well explained, and it aligns with my knowledge of the history of this organization.

One thing that seems misleading to me is that the applicant claims that LITMUS is "Japan's first media specializing in fact-checking." To my knowledge, FIJ has been operating since June 2017 according to its website (https://fij.info/about). InFact, another Japanese organization, has been operating a fact-checking unit since October 2019, according to its website (https://infact.press/organization/). There used to be Go-Hoo, a fact-checking initiative. However, FIJ is technically an organization that supports fact-checking activities in Japan in general in collaboration with other initiatives, and InFact's fact-checking unit is part of a broader media house. In this vein, the applicant's claim that it is "Japan's first media specializing in fact-checking" might not necessarily be false, but I would seek more clarification on this point to not mislead audiences who may not be familiar with these backgrounds. Again, this might be a nit-pick, but I would recommend that the board ask for further clarification.

(iii) the media, political, socio-economic and cultural context of the country

Japan is a country with 11 registered political parties as of July 2022. The coalition of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito party holds around 60 % of seats in the House of Representatives. Both the ruling and opposition parties are active on social media, but the conservative main party has been seen as more actively utilizing online platforms, including alternative video-hosting services, to engage with conservative, right-wing voters, which was particularly the case under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Recently, some politician who were close to assassinated Abe came under criticism for their racist and anti-LGBTQ remarks. In the past year, there has been a significant number of false claims and circulating around the issue of Abe’s assassination. Issues surrounding politics in Okinawa tends to attract national attention around the elections and therefore become a battle ground of combating mis- and disinformation. 

In sum, I marked this section as compliant, but further clarification on the points underlined may be beneficial for the board to make a decision.

LITMUS has published 39 articles from January 2022 as of today (Aug.16), including the time of its predecessor, Joho-Kensho JP.

https://note.com/johokensyo_jp

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

I confirmed that LITMUS published a total of 40 articles from January 8, 2022 to August 10, 2022, before this application was filed on August 16 ( August 15 Japan Time). This time period includes the time it was operating under the name of its predecessor (Joho-Kensho JP), and articles published under the name of its predecessor are re-published on the new LITMUS website - all accessible on the websites of both LITMUS and its predecessor. Although There were times when no fact-checking article was published for more than a week (e.g. between 3/31/2022-4/21/2022, 8/21/2022-9/7/2022), the website seems active and meets the criterion of an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the data of application.

According to the IFCN website, there was no verified signatories in Japan as of February 1, 2023.

I confirmed that LITMUS published a total of 40 articles from January 8, 2022 to August 10, 2022, before this application was filed on August 16 ( August 15 Japan Time). This time period includes the time it was operating under the name of its predecessor (Joho-Kensho JP), and articles published under the name of its predecessor are re-published on the new LITMUS website - all accessible on the websites of both LITMUS and its predecessor. Although There were times when no fact-checking article was published for more than a week (e.g. between 3/31/2022-4/21/2022, 8/21/2022-9/7/2022), the website seems active and meets the criterion of an average of at least one fact check a week over the course of the six months prior to the data of application.

According to the IFCN website, there was no verified signatories in Japan as of February 1, 2023.

Of the 39 articles currently being published, 33 articles are about events of public interest.

I randomly selected and reviewed a total of 20 fact checkes published over 6 months prior to the date of application. Based on my review, 17 out of the 20 fact-checking articles (85%) are focused on claims related to "public interest." The issues covered include the COVID-19 pandemic, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's assassination, taxes, Japan's territorial disputes with Russia, and the Ukrainian War.

I randomly selected and reviewed a total of 20 fact checkes published over 6 months prior to the date of application. Based on my review, 17 out of the 20 fact-checking articles (85%) are focused on claims related to "public interest." The issues covered include the COVID-19 pandemic, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's assassination, taxes, Japan's territorial disputes with Russia, and the Ukrainian War.

LITMUS is not affiliated with or funded by any country, political party, politician, or any other political entity.

To my knowledge, and based on LITMUS's claims, no financial and/or institutional relationship to the state, politicians, or political parties were found. According to its website, LITMUS's activities rely on donations from LITMUS's representative director and two directors, financial support through crowdfunding, and membership fees from its supporters.

To my knowledge, and based on LITMUS's claims, no financial and/or institutional relationship to the state, politicians, or political parties were found. According to its website, LITMUS's activities rely on donations from LITMUS's representative director and two directors, financial support through crowdfunding, and membership fees from its supporters.

The funders are disclosed on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/about/

(Translation from Japanese)

“Operating Funds:

(Amount of investment in the first fiscal year of foundation. Unit: yen)

OHTANI Tomoya 600,000

ANDO Miki 300,000

NISHIMURA Haruko 100,000

Others: Crowdfunding support, donations, etc."

No funding from local or foreign state or political sources were reported by LITMUS

No funding from local or foreign state or political sources were reported by LITMUS

See attached documents:

LITMUS adheres to the principle of non-partisanship in accordance with the policy in "For Fair and Impartial Fact-checking" on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/policy/

(Translation from Japanese)

“For Fair and Impartial Fact-checking

LITMUS is neutral in its approach to all ideologies and political beliefs, and as an organization does not endorse or express opposition to any political group or advocacy.

No member of the editorial team is directly involved with any political entity or is influenced by any particular political opinion.

The same selection criteria and verification methods are used for information to be verified, regardless of the content of the claims."

This principle is also applied to the ten fact-check articles listed in the attached document.

In particular, both information favorable to Ukraine (#2) and favorable to Russia (#6) in the case of the invasion of Ukraine is verified, and both statements made by a member of a ruling party and made by a member of an opposition party are verified in the case of the Upper House election with the same criteria.

Based on my review, LITMUS's fact checks generally do not seem to treat any one side with different standards by other sides.

- Of the 20 fact checks selected (10 provided by the applicant and 10 randomly selected by the assessor), no obvious cases were found where they dealt with similar or identical claims by two political sides with different standards. For example, The applicant fact-checked two claims related to the war in Ukraine: one was a tweet by a Ukrainian ambassador in Japan and a picture posted by him he claimed to be a sky in Kyiv, and the other was a tweet by regular user claiming that Ukrainian President deleted a video because it exposed his use of drugs. Both were ruled as "false." Within the sample, the applicant also fact-checks claims related to Japanese politicians and political parties from both the main and the oppositional sides, and these fact checks do not seem to exhibit particularly one-sided political stance to support one or the other. In general, there were few cases in which the applicant's fact checks dealt with identical or very similar claims by different sides.

- The applicant does not use partisan language in a consistent manner in its fact-checks. One fact check in the sample, which examined a claim that some political parties canceled street speeches following the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe while other parties continued to have their candidates give speeches on the streets without considering the impact of the event, had one line that could be taken as the use of partisan language by some. The fact-checked claim said parties like the Communist Party continued its election campaign "without any worries," and LITMUS's fact check article depicted this as "ill-intentioned" depiction of the Communist Party. However, I would consider this as a minor case.

- Regarding the quality of evidence, particularly in the cases whereby they deal with politicians' claims, the applicant's fact checks seem to ensure that they reach out to their office directly and obtain their first-hand responses when possible on top of other evidence - regardless of political sides.

Based on my review, LITMUS's fact checks generally do not seem to treat any one side with different standards by other sides.

- Of the 20 fact checks selected (10 provided by the applicant and 10 randomly selected by the assessor), no obvious cases were found where they dealt with similar or identical claims by two political sides with different standards. For example, The applicant fact-checked two claims related to the war in Ukraine: one was a tweet by a Ukrainian ambassador in Japan and a picture posted by him he claimed to be a sky in Kyiv, and the other was a tweet by regular user claiming that Ukrainian President deleted a video because it exposed his use of drugs. Both were ruled as "false." Within the sample, the applicant also fact-checks claims related to Japanese politicians and political parties from both the main and the oppositional sides, and these fact checks do not seem to exhibit particularly one-sided political stance to support one or the other. In general, there were few cases in which the applicant's fact checks dealt with identical or very similar claims by different sides.

- The applicant does not use partisan language in a consistent manner in its fact-checks. One fact check in the sample, which examined a claim that some political parties canceled street speeches following the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe while other parties continued to have their candidates give speeches on the streets without considering the impact of the event, had one line that could be taken as the use of partisan language by some. The fact-checked claim said parties like the Communist Party continued its election campaign "without any worries," and LITMUS's fact check article depicted this as "ill-intentioned" depiction of the Communist Party. However, I would consider this as a minor case.

- Regarding the quality of evidence, particularly in the cases whereby they deal with politicians' claims, the applicant's fact checks seem to ensure that they reach out to their office directly and obtain their first-hand responses when possible on top of other evidence - regardless of political sides.

The main criteria by which LITMUS selects claims to fact-check, as indicated in its policy, are mass dissemination, statements by public figures and celebrities, topics of high social interest, and misinformation related to the reputation of individuals and organizations. Claims are judged on overall importance and do not have to meet all criteria.

The number of retweets on Twitter is offered to the reader as the most concise and clear indicator of reach. Most of the 10 fact-check subjects we presented, or claims similar to them, have been retweeted by the thousands on Twitter, which is explained to the reader in each fact-check (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10). Although it is sometimes not possible to measure precisely, it can be assumed that some claims were disseminated further through tweets other than the examples given, highly viewed blogs, offline press coverage, and so on.

Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are tweets by high-profile politicians, public figures, and celebrities. Each of them has tens to hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter. In particular, Nos. 2, 7, and 8 are an ambassador representing his country, leader of a national political party, and politician of the ruling party and former minister of state, respectively, who all carry a great deal of social responsibility in their statements.

All 10 fact-checks, in our view, relate to topics of sufficient social interest; COVID-19, the invasion of Ukraine, and the national elections are all important issues of concern to citizens, and the attention to the news is also evident in the number of retweets and other factors. No. 10, the Chinese protests itself was widely reported in Japan, and in addition, the Chinese government's repression of its citizens and military moves have always been a serious concern for Japanese citizens, and whether or not the tanks were mobilized is of much interest.

Many of the claims have serious impacts related to individual and collective health (Nos. 1, 5), the shaping of public opinion on diplomatic and domestic issues (Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), and individual and collective honor (Nos. 6, 8, 9). In particular, Nos. 7, 8, and 9 were spread just before the national elections in July 2022, and thus had the potential to influence voting behavior.

As mentioned above, all 10 claims we have listed deserve fact-checking for multiple reasons.

The additional information provided by the applicant sufficiently explains why the claims were chosen to verify, and demonstrates that the applicant considers the reach and importance of the claims.

The additional information provided by the applicant sufficiently explains why the claims were chosen to verify, and demonstrates that the applicant considers the reach and importance of the claims.

See respective articles. To date, we have not used any sources in which we have any vested interest in.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

Based on the sample fact checks, the applicant discloses the sources sufficiently, and I did not find any particular case wherein the audience might suspect that the relationship could influence the findings of the fact-check. The applicant's fact checks mostly rely on archived documents, secondary sources such as reports by trusted media organizations, and direct coverage of politicians involved in the issues, and provide the sources with hyperlinks.

Based on the sample fact checks, the applicant discloses the sources sufficiently, and I did not find any particular case wherein the audience might suspect that the relationship could influence the findings of the fact-check. The applicant's fact checks mostly rely on archived documents, secondary sources such as reports by trusted media organizations, and direct coverage of politicians involved in the issues, and provide the sources with hyperlinks.

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

A review of LITMUS's Website, Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/litmus_facts) and its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/litmus.factcheck/) shows no affiliation or support for any particular political party, politician, political candidate or advocacy group. I saw no evidence of the applicant advocating against any policies, to my knowledge.

Social media accounts of its staffers are not within the scope of this assessment.

A review of LITMUS's Website, Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/litmus_facts) and its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/litmus.factcheck/) shows no affiliation or support for any particular political party, politician, political candidate or advocacy group. I saw no evidence of the applicant advocating against any policies, to my knowledge.

Social media accounts of its staffers are not within the scope of this assessment.

See "For Fair and Impartial Fact-checking" on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/policy/

(Translation from Japanese)

“For Fair and Impartial Fact-checking

LITMUS is neutral in its approach to all ideologies and political beliefs, and as an organization does not endorse or express opposition to any political group or advocacy.

No member of the editorial team is directly involved with any political entity or is influenced by any particular political opinion.

The same selection criteria and verification methods are used for information to be verified, regardless of the content of the claims."

(1) Review of the website

The applicant's website clearly sets out its policy that its staff remain non-partisan. If this policy is properly followed, I believe that it will ensure that the applicant's staff will not get involved in any political groups or advocacies.

(2) Review of social media accounts of key staff at the applicant

- Chief-in-editor Tomoya Otani's  Twitter account (@jishin_dema) 40 posts

- Director Miki Ando's Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/miki.ando.94) 40 posts

- Director Haruko Nishimura's Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/HarukoNishimura0924/) 20 posts

Note: I am almost certain that Miki and Haruko's accounts are theirs based on the descriptions and mentions to LITMUS, but these were not provided on LITMUS's website.

The review of social media accounts focused primarily on content posted in the period after LITMUS was set up. Because of the nature of their work, Ando and Otani's social media accounts pertains to political issues, but they are usually in the context of their fact checks (e.g. sharing their own fact checks or debunking other issues personally) rather than personal opinions. 

Additionally, I took a glance at Ando's blog posts (http://mikiando-life.com/) but posts are made before LITMUS started operating under its current name. Although there are a few posts about political issues related to the U.S. elections and Black Lives Matter that indicates her stance on certain policies, there was no clear indication of their support for a certain political party or politicians.

Overall, their social media accounts do not indicate that staff support on one side of any political arguments.

(1) Review of the website

The applicant's website clearly sets out its policy that its staff remain non-partisan. If this policy is properly followed, I believe that it will ensure that the applicant's staff will not get involved in any political groups or advocacies.

(2) Review of social media accounts of key staff at the applicant

- Chief-in-editor Tomoya Otani's  Twitter account (@jishin_dema) 40 posts

- Director Miki Ando's Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/miki.ando.94) 40 posts

- Director Haruko Nishimura's Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/HarukoNishimura0924/) 20 posts

Note: I am almost certain that Miki and Haruko's accounts are theirs based on the descriptions and mentions to LITMUS, but these were not provided on LITMUS's website.

The review of social media accounts focused primarily on content posted in the period after LITMUS was set up. Because of the nature of their work, Ando and Otani's social media accounts pertains to political issues, but they are usually in the context of their fact checks (e.g. sharing their own fact checks or debunking other issues personally) rather than personal opinions. 

Additionally, I took a glance at Ando's blog posts (http://mikiando-life.com/) but posts are made before LITMUS started operating under its current name. Although there are a few posts about political issues related to the U.S. elections and Black Lives Matter that indicates her stance on certain policies, there was no clear indication of their support for a certain political party or politicians.

Overall, their social media accounts do not indicate that staff support on one side of any political arguments.

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

(i) The applicant sufficiently identifies the sources of important evidence used in their fact checks. The applicant also provide links when available online. Although it can be difficult for some audiences to replicate their fact checks completely when the original sources are non-Japanese languages such as English, Korean and Chinese, but the applicant provides translations where possible. 

(ii) I found no particular cases where identifying the source would compromise the source's personal security. When the applicant refers to ordinary social media users who posted the claim in question, the applicant does not disclose the names or the accounts of the person, which is appropriate. In other cases, the applicant's fact checks primarily rely on archives, direct coverage of politicians, and secondary sources such as existing news reports. In these cases, the sources are disclosed and links are provided.

(i) The applicant sufficiently identifies the sources of important evidence used in their fact checks. The applicant also provide links when available online. Although it can be difficult for some audiences to replicate their fact checks completely when the original sources are non-Japanese languages such as English, Korean and Chinese, but the applicant provides translations where possible. 

(ii) I found no particular cases where identifying the source would compromise the source's personal security. When the applicant refers to ordinary social media users who posted the claim in question, the applicant does not disclose the names or the accounts of the person, which is appropriate. In other cases, the applicant's fact checks primarily rely on archives, direct coverage of politicians, and secondary sources such as existing news reports. In these cases, the sources are disclosed and links are provided.

LITMUS uses primary evidence as a source for fact-checking as much as possible, unless there are special reasons not to do so. Primary sources should be obtained whenever possible, but often secondary sources can also serve well as a basis for fact-checking when they are considered the best and appropriate sources available. Also, in cases where more credible evidence is presented at the same time, secondary sources, which alone are not conclusive evidence, may be presented only as referential or supplemental information.

Below, we will respond to the concerns specifically raised by the assessor.

1. Fact-check on Chinese tanks (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/08/455/)

The secondary sources, the AP and France24 reports, are presented only as a reference to supplement the verification results already explained. Sufficiently reliable methods, such as geolocation, have already proven that the shooting of the video and the bank protest took place at geographically remote locations. Secondary information is cited as a resource that provides a useful perspective for the reader, but we do not blindly trust them; we have also included logical questions with France24's accounts.

2. Fact-check on the torrential rains in South Korea (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/08/572/)

This article first quotes a testimony from a YouTube video in order to follow the timeline. The speaker claims to be a close acquaintance of the person in question, but this is not considered conclusive evidence, and is only informative.

Next, we cited a video by Yonhap News Agency, which is not only the leading media outlet in South Korea, but also the source of the TV program that prompted the claim to be verified. We have determined that they are themselves the most knowledgeable party of the facts and therefore a sufficiently reliable source.

3. Fact-check on statement by a Japanese politician (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/07/403/)

(Since no URL was given, we are not certain to which fact check the assessor's concern is directed. If the subject is mistaken, please let us know.)

This fact-check is a sequel to another validation (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/07/364/) of an online anonymous claim. In this prior fact check, conclusions have already been drawn based on the primary source, the court's written ruling, and specific evidence is provided in the links to avoid repetition.

Other media reports are for reference only, and these do not affect the conclusions or rating of the fact-check.

4. Fact-check on the Ukrainian ambassador's claims (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/03/38/)

The Daily Mail quote is a reference to a different photo than the one posted by the ambassador, which is the subject of the verification. Thus, the quote does not pertain to the main topic of this fact-check and does not affect the conclusion or rating.

The Daily Mail was one of a small number of media outlets that interviewed the Thai photographer directly. We chose to use a straightforward means to provide readers with more information after confirming with other sources that this photo was taken outside of Ukraine.

The applicant sufficiently explains in the additionally-provided material why secondary sources are used when it does for the fact-checking articles I specifically brought up in the first round of assesment, and why they can be justified. However, in some cases, particularly when the claim partains to domestic issues (e.g. https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/07/403/), the applicant can and should make an attempt to directly cover the people or institutions involved for additional comments or evidence even though the evidence does not drectly affect the conclusion (the readers may not understand the logic behind these decisions immediately / to gain their trust by making utmost efforts to use primary sources). I am not sure why in some cases (e.g. a lawyer, local police office, etc.) Litmus chose to quote secondary sources instead of contacting them in person - it's a matter of explanation. That said, I think for the purpose of this assesment, I can conclude that the applicant provided sufficient explanations as long as it concerns main evidence used for verifing a claim. However, please see my conclusion regarding this point.

The applicant sufficiently explains in the additionally-provided material why secondary sources are used when it does for the fact-checking articles I specifically brought up in the first round of assesment, and why they can be justified. However, in some cases, particularly when the claim partains to domestic issues (e.g. https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/07/403/), the applicant can and should make an attempt to directly cover the people or institutions involved for additional comments or evidence even though the evidence does not drectly affect the conclusion (the readers may not understand the logic behind these decisions immediately / to gain their trust by making utmost efforts to use primary sources). I am not sure why in some cases (e.g. a lawyer, local police office, etc.) Litmus chose to quote secondary sources instead of contacting them in person - it's a matter of explanation. That said, I think for the purpose of this assesment, I can conclude that the applicant provided sufficient explanations as long as it concerns main evidence used for verifing a claim. However, please see my conclusion regarding this point.

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

The applicant mostly use two or more sources as evidence for key claims.

The applicant mostly use two or more sources as evidence for key claims.

See respective articles. To date, we have not used any sources in which we have any vested interests in.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

I found no particular cases wherein the applicant uses sources that might lead the reader reasonably conclude that the sources' interests could influence the results of its fact checks. 

I found no particular cases wherein the applicant uses sources that might lead the reader reasonably conclude that the sources' interests could influence the results of its fact checks. 

LITMUS is run as an independent organization.

The applicant indicates on its website that it is registered as a general incorporated association, and provides a link to the tax agency that proves its legal status. It is an independent organization.

The applicant indicates on its website that it is registered as a general incorporated association, and provides a link to the tax agency that proves its legal status. It is an independent organization.

LITMUS is a non-profit organization registered as a general incorporated association (corporation no.: 3011105010302).

https://www.houjin-bangou.nta.go.jp/henkorireki-johoto.html?selHouzinNo=3011105010302

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/about/

(Translation from Japanese)

“Operational Organization:

In December 2021, the organization launched its "Joho-Kensho JP (Information Verification JP)" project led by Chief Editor OHTANI Tomoya.

It had been operating as a voluntary organization, but changed its name to "LITMUS" in June 2022 to become a general incorporated association.

Organization Name:

LITMUS (Non-profit general incorporated association)

Location of Head Office:

Shinjuku Entre-Salon Bldg. 2F, 2-12-13, Shinjuku, Shinjuku Ward, Tokyo, JAPAN

Board of Directors:

OHTANI Tomoya, Representative Director

ANDO Miki, Director

NISHIMURA Haruko, Director"

The applicant's webpage provides all sources of its revenues (although it's not clear which source of funding account for what percentage). There is a link to the legal form in which the organization is registered (https://www.houjin-bangou.nta.go.jp/henkorireki-johoto.html?selHouzinNo=3011105010302).

The applicant's webpage provides all sources of its revenues (although it's not clear which source of funding account for what percentage). There is a link to the legal form in which the organization is registered (https://www.houjin-bangou.nta.go.jp/henkorireki-johoto.html?selHouzinNo=3011105010302).

See "Members" on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/about/

On the "Members" section on its website, the applicant clearly sets out its structure, provides names of its staff and their roles. The applicant's website also provides information on how the editorial process is exercised. It states that at least three staff members are involved in one fact check (two reviewers and the editor-in-chief's final review).

On the "Members" section on its website, the applicant clearly sets out its structure, provides names of its staff and their roles. The applicant's website also provides information on how the editorial process is exercised. It states that at least three staff members are involved in one fact check (two reviewers and the editor-in-chief's final review).

See "Members" on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/about/

The applicant's website details the professional biographies of those who play a main part in editorial output (the editor-in-chief, a general manager, two researchers, three assistant editors - these 7 staff members have their professional biographies on its website). 

The applicant's website details the professional biographies of those who play a main part in editorial output (the editor-in-chief, a general manager, two researchers, three assistant editors - these 7 staff members have their professional biographies on its website). 

A contact form is available on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/contact/

A link to the form is also provided at the end of each article.

There is a contact form through which the audience can reach out to the applicant on its webpage.

There is a contact form through which the audience can reach out to the applicant on its webpage.

See "Selection Criteria for Fact-checking," "Research Methods" and "Publishing Process" on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/policy/

(Translation from Japanese)

"Selection Criteria for Fact-checking:

Only statements of fact that can be objectively determined to be true or false will be subject to verification; subjective perceptions, opinions, claims, editorials, etc. will not be evaluated (however, information that is likely to mislead the general public regarding the facts on which the opinion is based may be subject to verification).

The verification includes, and is not limited to, all publicly disseminated information, including speeches, texts, images, and videos, by individuals, companies, and organizations, both online and offline.

Priority will be given to particularly important discourse from a holistic perspective, such as mass dissemination, statements by public figures and celebrities, topics of high social interest, and misinformation related to the reputation of individuals and organizations."

"Research Methods:

In fact-checking, we present evidence that can be objectively verified and traced. Sources of information will be clearly noted, and primary sources will be used whenever possible.

When necessary, we will conduct interviews with relevant parties to gather accurate information. In such cases, we will publish a summary or full text of the response without alteration."

"Publishing Process:

LITMUS ensures that at least three people are involved in each fact-checking article to maintain the quality of the article.

Before publication, we assign reviewers who will check the article from the reader's point of view to carefully review the verification process for any problems, or for any points that are difficult to understand, and so on.

All fact-checking articles are published after a final check by the chief editor."

As provided in the application form, the applicant's website has a statement about methodology, research, write and publish its fact checks. From the website, I understood that the applicant mainly check claims requested by its readers. If the applicant also monitors claims made in the public domain, it may be beneficial for the readers to mention that more clearly on the website.

As provided in the application form, the applicant's website has a statement about methodology, research, write and publish its fact checks. From the website, I understood that the applicant mainly check claims requested by its readers. If the applicant also monitors claims made in the public domain, it may be beneficial for the readers to mention that more clearly on the website.

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

According to the application form and the website, the applicant focuses on claims that can be "objectively determined to be true or false," "all publicly disseminated information" in any formats, and issues that are of particular importance in terms of its reach, social interest, harm that can be done to the reputation of individuals and organizations.

In cross-checking the sample fact checks, the applicant seems to generally pick claims based on the reach and importance of the claims. Some of the applicant's fact checks mention the number of retweets, which I took as an indication of how the applicant assesses the reach. In cases where the reach (i.e. # of retweets) is not mentioned in the fact check, the applicant seems to have selected these claims based on the importance and relevance of the issue to the general public (ex: former Prime Minister Abe's assassination: https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/07/364/). However, in some cases, the reason for choosing the claim to check can be more clearly explained. For example, this fact check of a viral tweet originating from Korea (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/08/572/) was chosen because it was "widely talked about" by citizens, but the number of retweets shown beneath the photo is hard to identify, and the reason why this claim was picked could have been more clearly explained in the article. That said, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant, by a rule, picks claims based on reach and importance.

This might sound contradictory, but I marked criteria 2.2. as non-compliant to recommend that the board seek further elaboration on this point. This is because the applicant did not provide elaborated explanations of why each claim in the selected sample was chosen in the previous section. (If that's not something IFCN required, my assessment on criteria 2.2. can be changed to 'compliant').

According to the application form and the website, the applicant focuses on claims that can be "objectively determined to be true or false," "all publicly disseminated information" in any formats, and issues that are of particular importance in terms of its reach, social interest, harm that can be done to the reputation of individuals and organizations.

In cross-checking the sample fact checks, the applicant seems to generally pick claims based on the reach and importance of the claims. Some of the applicant's fact checks mention the number of retweets, which I took as an indication of how the applicant assesses the reach. In cases where the reach (i.e. # of retweets) is not mentioned in the fact check, the applicant seems to have selected these claims based on the importance and relevance of the issue to the general public (ex: former Prime Minister Abe's assassination: https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/07/364/). However, in some cases, the reason for choosing the claim to check can be more clearly explained. For example, this fact check of a viral tweet originating from Korea (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/08/572/) was chosen because it was "widely talked about" by citizens, but the number of retweets shown beneath the photo is hard to identify, and the reason why this claim was picked could have been more clearly explained in the article. That said, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant, by a rule, picks claims based on reach and importance.

This might sound contradictory, but I marked criteria 2.2. as non-compliant to recommend that the board seek further elaboration on this point. This is because the applicant did not provide elaborated explanations of why each claim in the selected sample was chosen in the previous section. (If that's not something IFCN required, my assessment on criteria 2.2. can be changed to 'compliant').

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

The applicant provides relevant evidence that reasonably supports its judgment. It also attends to evidence that could undermine it. A good example is this fact check (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/06/182/) about the minimum wage in the United States. It gives nuanced explanations on the fact that there has been a move to raise the minimum wage in the U.S. but it's not in place yet.

The applicant provides relevant evidence that reasonably supports its judgment. It also attends to evidence that could undermine it. A good example is this fact check (https://litmus-factcheck.jp/2022/06/182/) about the minimum wage in the United States. It gives nuanced explanations on the fact that there has been a move to raise the minimum wage in the U.S. but it's not in place yet.

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

The applicant uses the same standard to check claims regardless of who made them.

The applicant uses the same standard to check claims regardless of who made them.

See respective articles.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/fact-check/

The applicant makes efforts to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence. The applicant have contacted Twitter users who made the claims, politicians and public figures when it seems necessary and possible, in most fact checks. The applicant also clearly states when it was not able to obtain comments by a deadline set by the applicant.

The applicant makes efforts to contact those who made the claim to seek supporting evidence. The applicant have contacted Twitter users who made the claims, politicians and public figures when it seems necessary and possible, in most fact checks. The applicant also clearly states when it was not able to obtain comments by a deadline set by the applicant.

A contact form is available on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/contact/

The "Selection Criteria for Fact-checking" and "Contact Information" sections on the following page explain about the process and criteria for fact checks.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/policy/

(Translation from Japanese)

"Selection Criteria for Fact-checking

Only statements of fact that can be objectively determined to be true or false will be subject to verification; subjective perceptions, opinions, claims, editorials, etc. will not be evaluated (however, information that is likely to mislead the general public regarding the facts on which the opinion is based may be subject to verification).

The verification includes, and is not limited to, all publicly disseminated information, including speeches, texts, images, and videos, by individuals, companies, and organizations, both online and offline.

Priority will be given to particularly important discourse from a holistic perspective, such as mass dissemination, statements by public figures and celebrities, topics of high social interest, and misinformation related to the reputation of individuals and organizations."

"Contact Information

Please send us your comments, information, or requests for corrections via our Contact Us page.

Fact-check requests are also welcome.

However, we will decide whether or not to perform the verification in light of the aforementioned selection criteria."

On its webpage, the applicant encourages its audience to send in claims to fact check through either its contact form on the website or Twitter using a hashtag. The website sets out its criteria on how to select claims to check, and the readers can reasonably expect what will and will not be fact checked. That said, providing succinct examples of claims that deserves (and does not deserve) checking can be beneficial to the public. 

On its webpage, the applicant encourages its audience to send in claims to fact check through either its contact form on the website or Twitter using a hashtag. The website sets out its criteria on how to select claims to check, and the readers can reasonably expect what will and will not be fact checked. That said, providing succinct examples of claims that deserves (and does not deserve) checking can be beneficial to the public. 

Corrections will be listed on the following page. To date, no corrections have been made.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/news/news-category/correction/

As provided by the applicant, it has a page on its website where corrections will be published. As of the date of my assessment, there is no corrections listed on this webpage.

As provided by the applicant, it has a page on its website where corrections will be published. As of the date of my assessment, there is no corrections listed on this webpage.

See "Correction Policy" on the following page.

https://litmus-factcheck.jp/policy/

(Translation from Japanese)

"Correction Policy:

When we discover factual errors, omissions of material facts, ratings that need to be reconsidered, or other inadequacies in verification, we will make corrections as soon as possible.

In such cases, we will clearly indicate the part, details, and date of the correction and announce it here on the list page.

However, this does not apply to minor corrections such as typographical errors.

If you find a description that you think needs to be corrected, please point it out to us at the contact address below.

However, we may not take action if we determine that no correction is necessary as a result of our review.

We may also add a note if we receive a belated response from the interviewee after the fact-checking is published, or if we become aware of corrections, revisions, or deletions in the information that was the subject of the verification."

The applicant's website clearly sets out its policy on correction. According to the website, the applicant:

1. will immediately correct its fact checks when mistakes or a lack of important evidence are found, and when it changes its ratings

2. will clearly indicate what corrections were made and when

3. will not notify its readers when it's only a correction of typos and other minor changes

4. encourages its readers to contact them when the readers find information that they believe should be corrected

5. may not always make corrections when it judges that the corrections requested by its readers are not necessary

The applicant's website clearly sets out its policy on correction. According to the website, the applicant:

1. will immediately correct its fact checks when mistakes or a lack of important evidence are found, and when it changes its ratings

2. will clearly indicate what corrections were made and when

3. will not notify its readers when it's only a correction of typos and other minor changes

4. encourages its readers to contact them when the readers find information that they believe should be corrected

5. may not always make corrections when it judges that the corrections requested by its readers are not necessary

To date, no correction requests have been received.

I mark this section 'compliant' as the applicant states that no correction requests have been received to date.

I mark this section 'compliant' as the applicant states that no correction requests have been received to date.

LITMUS is not yet a signatory of the IFCN.

I marked it as compliant as it's not applicable 

I marked it as compliant as it's not applicable 

LITMUS is an independent organization.

I marked it as compliant as it's not applicable 

I marked it as compliant as it's not applicable