Nieuwscheckers is a project by staff and students of Leiden University’s dept. of Journalism and New Media. This affiliation is on the about-page and homepage of our websites. 

The signatory is an established fact-checking organization or section. It has produced an average of one fact-check per week or more over the past three weeks.

So far, Nieuwscheckers has been part of our journalism students’ coursework. Since it is mandatory only for specific courses, the site is maintained intermittently. From 2009 onwards, students have checked news media coverage, focusing on science-related items. These factchecks have been archived on http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/

Recently (i.e. February-March 2017), we branched out into political fact-checking:

http://tidm.nl/nieuwscheckers/. This is a short-term project that serves as a pilot for a more permanent fact-checking project.  

The signatory has published an average of at least one fact-check per week over the past three months.

Fact-checks focusing on media coverage of science: over the years we have checked the accuracy of both science news and – often, but not always – the studies featured in the news. Topics range from the frivolous (‘Does the drink Stiff Bull provide men with an erection that lasts for three days?’) to the serious (‘Does obesity lower life expectancy?’). Media outlets checked range from tabloid websites to quality broadsheets. Examples:

Wijn drinken beschermt niet tegen Alzheimer http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?p=10000

Eten alle Nederlanders te zout? Dat ligt iets genuanceerder

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?p=9912

Oud worden met obesitas?

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?p=9583

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?p=9995

Lelijkevrienden-effect bestaat, maar reken er niet op voor een date

Geeft Stiff Bull je seksleven vleugels? Dat blijkt tegen te vallen

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?p=9953

Political fact-checks: in the run-up to the 15 March national elections, Nieuwscheckers assesses the accuracy of claims by leading politicians. The fact-checks published to date cover most of the major political parties. Topics include crime, migration, public health, the economy, and the job market. Examples:

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/het-cda-is-helemaal-niet-zo-aow-onvriendelijk-als-55plus-beweert/

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/de-halalisering-van-de-schoolkantine/

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/de-etnobarometer-schreeuwende-koppen-gebaseerd-op-een-dubieuze-peiling/

http://www./nieuwscheckers.nl/worden-inburgeringsvragen-echt-wetenschappelijk-onderzocht/

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/neemt-het-aantal-abortussen-vooral-onder-jonge-vrouwen-toe/

We strive to maintain coherent standards. Students receive training and they are handed a set of guidelines before they start checking. Fact-checks are vetted for accuracy and fairness by lecturers before publication.  

The signatory fact-checks claims made by all relevant sides in its chosen topic or field, the assessment of “relevance” taking account of both (a) the significance of the claim for society if it is unchecked, and (b) the reach or potential reach of the claim. It assesses all claims using the same standards.

The lecturers involved are not supposed to actively and publicly support a political party. The about-page of our project states: 'Om onpartijdige behandeling van beweringen te waarborgen, zijn begeleiders van het Nieuwscheckers-project niet politiek actief.' (i.e., In order to warrant impartial processing of claims, supervisors of the Nieuwscheckers project are not supposed to be actively involved in politics.)

The signatory has clear rules preventing its lecturers from active involvement in advocacy

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?page_id=34

Our fact-checks contain links to all relevant sources: the people we quote, the news items we discuss, the studies we assess. In one recent case involving an extensive check for which we contacted more than a hundred Dutch schools, we provided a separate page outlining the research design.

In the signatory’s reports, key sources are always clearly referenced and/or linked to in a manner that readers, viewers or listeners can easily understand and replicate the fact check if they wish

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/over-nieuwscheckers/

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/

Its affiliation with Leiden University is clear but there is not clear information on how that project is funded by the University (or outside sources). 

See http://nieuwscheckers.nl/over-nieuwscheckers/. All fact-checks carry the bylines of the student authors.

Student bylines are clearly marked though biographical sketches are unavailable. 

http://nieuwscheckers.nl/over-nieuwscheckers/ and http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/

The signatory actively invites readers to reach out. The medium for doing so is obvious.

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?page_id=34 One of the means we employ to ensure fair and accurate reporting is that we routinely contact the journalists, media outlet, researcher, or politician whose claims we dispute. A more extensive set of guidelines is handed out to the students. We’ll send a copy by email to factchecknet@poynter.org. Pending the present application, our about-page (http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/ states that we subscribe to the IFCN’s code of principles.

The signatory’s website provides a step-by-step explanation of its methodology.

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/over-nieuwscheckers/ http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/#none (click ‘Tip ons’)

The signatory’s website provides a dedicated section/call for action that explains to readers how to send claims and which claims can be fact-checked

http://www.journalistiekennieuwemedia.nl/NC/?page_id=34 The first item on this page: ‘Ook factcheckers kunnen fouten maken. Uitgangspunt is steeds open en transparant te zijn over de gehanteerde werkwijze. Fouten worden ruiterlijk erkend en waar nodig toegelicht (ook op het weblog).’ Nieuwscheckers can also be contacted on Twitter (@Nieuwscheckers) and on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/nieuwscheckers/).

The evidence submitted fully complies with the requirements. 

In February we fact-checked a politician’s claims about the rising number of abortions and the motivations of pregnant women to have an abortion. After publication a Twitter user pointed out the existence of a report we had overlooked, necessitating a correction. We added an update at the bottom of the original fact-check. See:

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/neemt-het-aantal-abortussen-vooral-onder-jonge-vrouwen-toe/

After publication of a fact-check on the financial benefits of being in the EU, an economist argued for a more cautious conclusion. We contacted him, decided that he had a point, and added an update that strikes a more nuanced note.

http://www.nieuwscheckers.nl/d66-onderbouwt-het-belang-van-de-eu-voor-nederland-met-boterzachte-cijfers/

The evidence submitted fully complies with the requirements.