Newtral Media Audiovisual SL was registered in October 2017 and has been operating since January 2018. Newtral.es is one of the journalistic projects of the company. The founding team of Newtral.es was the same that created El Objetivo de Ana Pastor, aired on LaSextaTV, first IFCN signatory in Spain.

LINK: https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant, Newtral.es, is one of the journalistic projects of Newtral Media Audiovisual SL, who is also dedicated to news video projects. The applicant is the fact checking and verification unit of the group and was founded in 2018. They are part, then, of a legally registered organization.

1. The origin of the Newtral.es fact-checking team dates back to the TV program El Objeto de Ana Pastor, broadcast by La Sexta since 2013. The program had a permanent fact-checking segment. Later, a debunking one. Over the years, the same team of journalists founded Newtral.es using the same methodology.

2. Newtral is an audiovisual media start-up that covers different fields and employs around 80 people. Without a doubt the most important projects are the television programs. 12 journalists work in the Newtral.es verification team, divided into 2 areas: political fact-checking and debunking of hoaxes.

https://www.newtral.es/equipo-de-verificacion/

3. We launched the first Masters Degree in fact-checking in Spain together with the San Pablo CEU university. In addition to the audiovisual production and the verification articles published on Newtral.es, we invest in research and development applied to fact-checking through artificial intelligence. Furthermore, we created the Newtral Education project to promote critical thinking and media literacy. Newtral.es is also part of the European Digital Media Observatory, that "brings together fact-checkers and academic researchers with expertise in the field of online disinformation"

4. The goals of our fact-checking team for the next year are to strengthen the strategic alliance with different fact-checking teams in Latin America and Spain through the use of technological tools that allow us to automate more efficiently the work to fight against political disinformation.

The fact checking operation of the Newtral goes back to earlier experiences the journalist Ana Pastor had on TV, in 2013. This was migrated to become the current operation of the applicant, dedicated to verification and fact checking.The current team for fact checking is formed by 12 people. They are diverse in terms of operation, also working in education, through their own Master Degree in partnership with a university and another initiatives. They plan on expanding their operations through partnerships with fact checking teams in Latin America. Thus, the applicant is fully dedicated to fact checking and other related activies.

Newtral.es publishes new fact-checks daily.

The articles are showed in an original, clear and open "timelines" on its website. 

Here is the timeline for the verification of political discourse articles:

https://www.newtral.es/zona-verificacion/fact-check/

And here is the timeline for the debunking of disinformation articles:

https://www.newtral.es/zona-verificacion/fakes/

We have 423 articles (total both areas), registered on our records, over the course of the six months prior to the date of application. 70,5 claims per month. 

The applicant meets and surpasses the minimum amount of fact checks in a year. In the last 12 months, they have published over 200 checks, and over 150 debunkings. Their interface to consult the archives of articles, checks and debunkings is clear and organized.

After a review of a random set of checks, it was concluded that the applicant focuses their journalistic efforts in issued of social importance, generally connected to politics, economics, social issues like migration, and health. They focus on topics that could impact people's lives.

No relation to the state, politicians or political parties. No public funding at all from Spanish institutions. In 2019 we received support from the EU to study the feasibility of an artificial intelligence project applied to verification. Information on the application of the European Instrument called Horizon 2020 SME is here: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/855556/es

The applicant has not received any financial support from public or government institutes recently. Their accounts also don't display any relationship to state actors. However, they did receive support from the EU of 50.000 Euros to study the feasibility of applying artificial intelligence to verification. The project is public and doesn't involve any control over the content of the applicant.

We provide this information of the editorial independence standards here: https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant receives little to no support from state actors, the only initiative in that sense being the aforementioned project with the EU. In their About page, they state their independence and neutrality in terms of selection and reporting of fact-checkings.

As you can see in the links, we follow the same standards of evidence for every article. First, we check the data, we send an inquiry to the politician to consult which is the source of information used for the claim (if that's the case, on a political fact-check), and we contrast it with the official information and reliable and solid related data from international and national organizations or public sources. Then, we analyze the facts with experts to check that we are understanding correctly the data we are using, with the right and comprehensive context. In every fact-check, we explain the verification path we follow to get the conclusions we share. Regarding all this, we decide the rating. All ratings are explained in each article, with links to our methodology.

https://www.newtral.es/vacunas-covid-terapias-sustituidas-comision-europea/20210926/

https://www.newtral.es/mujeres-contratos-indefinidos/20210926/

https://www.newtral.es/volcanes-emiten-co2-dioxido-de-carbono-la-palma/20210929/

https://www.newtral.es/betadine-coronavirus-gargaras-bulo/20210924/

https://www.newtral.es/paro-juvenil-prepandemia-nadia-calvino/20210909/

https://www.newtral.es/factcheck-enganoso-barcelona-presupuesto-limpieza-asegura-colau/20210924/

https://www.newtral.es/casado-psoe-gasto-electoral-fact-check/20210923/

https://www.newtral.es/comunidades-autonomas-vacuna-covid-historia-clinica/20210923/

https://www.newtral.es/vacunas-covid-cancer-sistema-inmunitario-estudio/20211004/

https://www.newtral.es/ione-belarra-derecho-huelga-canamero-pedro-ruiz-fact-check/20210922/

After an examination of the links produced by the applicant, it was concluded that the applicant's work is balanced, and their use of evidence is based on high journalistic standards regardless of the actor being checked.

We explain this methodology here: https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant has a section dedicated to their Methodology on their website. It is transparent and clear. This section details that claims are chosen based on journalistic criteria of social importance and reach, and it states neutrality in terms of what claims are chosen. Their methods section abides completely by the code.

After a review of random fact checkts, it was concluded that the applicant explains clearly the nature of their sources when checking a claim. This means that they put sources in context, where the reader can identify relevant interests that could influence the interpretation of a given check. Although this context is explained, it's not usual to have a source where their interests influence the result of a check.

After a review of random posts by the applicant, it was observed that the applicant checks claims in a balanced way. They do not show support for any political party, agent or policy, and their checks cover the whole political spectrum, without demonstrating preferences. They also don't fall victim to try to equate parties or speeches, but rather analyze individual claims based on their value. This is also visible in a useful feature from their website, where the reader can filter checks by political party/coalition, thus rendering their balance visible.

We explain our non-partisanship and neutrality policy in our methodology here: https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant's About page has a section defining non-partisanship for their staff. They state that staff is forbidden to integrate political party or demonstrations, or to show support for ideologies. Social media use by the staff is seen with caution. A review of recent posts in social media feeds from the team demonstrated that this policy is enforced.

The applicant consistently discloses the sources uses in their checks, whether it is the debunking section or the fact checking section. Sources are linked to, using external hyperlinks, and experts or departments interviewed are named. The applicant refrains from using not named sources. The steps taken by the journalists are visible to the audience.

The applicant consistently uses primary sources to verify claims. This usually means documental, official sources, but, in the cases where this is not possible, they use relevant experts to inform a given discussion. There is a section in their About page where the applicant states and defends their use of primary sources, only resorting to unnamed, not official sources as as last resource. A review of random fact checks has confirmed this practice.

When verifying a claim, the applicant consistently checks said claim integrally. This means they analyze different parts of the claim, using separate sources for each part. An evidence of this is the frequent use of the labels Mostly true or Mostly false, where they demonstrate that some claims may have parts of truth or parts of lies. However, in terms of clarity, every check has a summary on the bottom of the page, making it easier for the reader to understand the whole picture.

One example of this posture can be found in the following check: https://www.newtral.es/factcheck-enganoso-barcelona-presupuesto-limpieza-asegura-colau/20210924/

When using a source, the applicant puts the source in context, especially when checking claims from political actors. This way, the reader can interpret whenever the sources' interest may influence the check. However, this is not a common situation, since the sources used are generally documents or experts, rendering them more isolated from such influences. The applicant is compliant.

The verification unit of Newtral.es is a journalistic project of Newtral Media Audiovisual SL.

We explain this here: https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant is a unit within Newtral Media, a videojournalism company. This is clear in their branding and naming, and is explained in their About section.

Newtral Media Audiovisual SLU is an independent organization 100% owned by the Spanish journalist Ana Pastor.

https://www.newtral.es/quienes-somos/

More details about finances related to Newtral.es are explained here:

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

As explained previously, the applicant is a section within Newtral, a videojournalism company. However, their About section has some details on the finances of the whole group. Although it is not exhaustive, this renders their governance more transparent.

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant has a Staff page where the team is detailed. The corporate structure of the team is clear, as well as the persons responsible for editorial control.

This is the team in charge of the articles related to fact-checking and debunking

https://www.newtral.es/equipo-de-verificacion/

This is the page with all the members of the company, including ownership and corporate.

https://www.newtral.es/equipo/

The same Staff page where readers can check who exercises editorial control also displays the pictures, position and professional bio of all the staff. Email addresses and Twitter handles are also available for almost every member.

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant is easily reachable. There are two contacts points for readers to contact the team. One is Staff Page, where professionals have their email address available. The other is the Contact page, which displays physical address, email address, WhatsApp and phone number. This page is linked to in their landing page, as well as in their About section.

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

In their About page, the applicant has a clear guide on their methodology and its application to checks. It covers the general idea of fact checking, the general work of the team when choosing claims, and how they are checked.

The applicant selects claims based on two factors: social importance and reach, both of which are applied in the political fact checking section and in the debunking section. The concern of choosing claims based on these two aspects features in their methods section. After a review of the checks, the assessor could confirm that both these aspects can be seen in the claims they check.

A review of random fact checks reveals that the applicant applies evidence responsibly, open both to support and undermine the claim. Instead of just taking the main factor of the claim, they analyze different aspects and implications connected to it. This renders their checks more complex than just a singular view. One example of this can be found in the following check: https://www.newtral.es/mujeres-contratos-indefinidos/20210926/. Another one can be found here: https://www.newtral.es/paro-juvenil-prepandemia-nadia-calvino/20210909/

Although it's not common to find exactly equivalent claims to compare, the applicant does analyze them in a balanced way. This means they employ evidences using high journalistic standards regardless of the actors that has made the claim.

A review of random checks demonstrated that the applicant has the protocol to contact whoever has made the claim, in order to identify the source of a given information, or to add context. This can be seen in following two checks, which refer to actors in opposite ends of the political spectrum: https://www.newtral.es/factcheck-muertes-por-gripe-y-covid/20210827/ / https://www.newtral.es/paga-menas-andalucia-santiago-abascal/20210902/

However, this is frequent in their political fact checking section, but not in the debunking section, since in the latter they often check anonymous or viral claims.

We explain the methodology of the on demand verification service here:

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

In their About page, in the Methods section, the applicant has a paragraph where they explain how claims to be checked are chosen, which includes describing what is checkable.

In terms of encouraging users to send in claims, this happens in different instances. On the top right-hand corner of the landing page there is a link for a section called Send us questions, with a form where readers can send claims. In the checks themselves, there is a form cleverly encouraging the reader to send claims from the politician whose affirmatives are being checked.

We will review an article as many times as necessary and rectify it or make the corrections or updates if required. The time it takes will depend on the degree of verification, analysis and consultation with the sources involved in the article. We explain this here:

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

In their About page, the applicant has a section dedicated to corrections. It is visible and clear.

We have added a specific page to show the reader in more detail how we process the Corrections and Updates policy. 

The new page is this: https://www.newtral.es/politica-rectificacion/

Also, it is linked through this: https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The policy is clear in that it defines that errors will be dealt with, that data will be checked how many times deemed necessary, and that sources will be checked again if requests are made, which may demand more time. However, the policy could be clearer on what types of errors are covered and what types are not covered. This would make it clearer to the reader what can be expected when a request is made, and how it will be handled. The policy could also be clearer on how exactly the correction will look like. A good reference from another applicant from the same country is Maldita's correction policy: https://maldita.es/politica-de-rectificacion

The policy is clear in that it defines that errors will be dealt with, that data will be checked how many times deemed necessary, and that sources will be checked again if requests are made, which may demand more time. After an update, the corrections policy is fully compliant. It details what types of errors are covered, how they are handled, and how corrections appear to the reader.

When we correct or modify an article, it is reflected in the text, on the subtitle, clearly noted, and also an explanatory text with the details and the reason of the modification, update or rectification. Here you can find two examples:

In a previous version of this article, it was not included that a clip of the video was published in 2015 and that it mentions the possible author of the action.

https://www.newtral.es/cuba-asesinato-tiroteo-masivo-video-bulo/20210716/

In a first version of this text we indicated that no senator has the institutional agenda published and therefore, they are not complying with the regulations because the Senate told Newtral.es that its non-publication depended on the parliamentary groups. Subsequently, several parties commented to Newtral.es that if they do not have the agenda uploaded in their profiles, it is because they do not have a section enabled on the Senate website. Information that was later confirmed, and the article, therefore, rectified.

https://www.newtral.es/senadores-agenda-reglamento-obligatorio/20210531/

The applicant has produced two instances where articles have been corrected. In both, the same procedure was followed: the main text was corrected, there is a visible mark near the title stating that a correction was made, and a short explanation was added on the footer of the article, detailing what was corrected and why. Both corrections are clear and transparent, and the policy was adhered to.

Criteria 6.4

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The applicant displays the IFCN banner in their about page, explaining what the IFCN is and linking to the Code of Principles. The same section also features a link to the Complaints Policy of the IFCN.

Criteria 6.5

https://www.newtral.es/metodologia-transparencia/

The Corrections Policy of the applicant also refers to the parent company, since they exist in the same webpage. It is not specific to the fact checking operation.