Sanoma Media Netherlands (for further info: http://www.sanoma.nl)

We suggest applicant makes a  page with specific information about the project. The applicant provided a generic webpage which is not "set up exclusively for the purpose of fact-checking or the distinct fact-checking project" It is the link of a media company mainly specialised in magazines (from Donald Duck to car magazines) who has also a well known news brand in the Netherlands called NU.NL - the brand of applicant. There is a page on nu.nl explaining an experiment for Facebook fact checking, see https://www.nu.nl/blog/4509129/redactieblog-waarom-nunl-helpt-met-factchecken-facebook.html , a tag "fake news", https://www.nu.nl/tag/Nepnieuws There is no specific explanation for the project NUcheckt on https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt  

http://www.nu.nl/nucheckt

Applicant claims to check news on a daily basis, according to the intro of each fact check. It's not every day, but they do easily meet the criterium of at least one report a week.

1. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5434994/nucheckt-veel-bacterien-smartphone-maar-onbekend-hoeveel-precies.html

2. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5427653/nucheckt-waarom-hete-zomer-geen-strenge-winter-veroorzaakt.html

3. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5429558/nucheckt-niet-checken-hoeveel-studenten-zelfmoordgedachten-hebben.html

4. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5424152/nucheckt-onjuiste-informatie-verspreid-afkomst-verkrachters-denemarken-.html

5. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5418893/nucheckt-maakt-weinig-of-of-ontbijt-tanden-poetst.html

6. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5422433/nucheckt-geen-bewijs-mensen-van-kerst-houden-gelukkiger.html

7. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5417198/nucheckt-waarom-schelden-niet-zomaar-hechtere-vriendschappen-zorgt.html

8. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5413919/nucheckt-onduidelijk-hoeveel-jongeren-vakantie-condooms-gebruiken.html

9. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5412155/nucheckt-intelligente-mensen-drinken-waarschijnlijk-meer-alcohol.html

10. https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5408282/nucheckt-geen-enkel-verband-tussen-dragen-van-beha-en-borstkanker.html

Short explanation: Each article always begins with allegation and judgment. Followed by origin, description of our research and comprehensive conclusion. Evidence dictates conclusions, we do not take a position on the topic, sources are transparent and a second editor is always double checking.

Applicant started in 2017 with debunking/checking Facebook memes. Topics are often health related - see the 10 fact checks NU.NL provided themselves.  The last 100 fact checks, over 50% were health related.  The fact checks related to health do differ in "weight": and can range from fact checking  based on commercial firms who publish a  often sloppy survey to international scientific studies. The variety of subjects is something to monitor:  NU Factcheck didn't publish a substantial number of reports about economy, politics, immigration or education. 

In one case applicant didn't check the facts themselves, but solely depended on a press agency, see https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5521058/nucheckt-in-bad-verbrand-niet-evenveel-calorieen-als-met-sporten.html

Sometimes there is no editor or press agency mentioned at all as fact checker, see https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/5255645/nucheckt-zzpers-gelukkiger-dan-werknemers-in-loondienst.html

All our editors work according to the journalistic principles of editorial independence, objectivity and reliability, as laid down in the Bordeaux Code --> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_van_Bordeaux. In the attachment by e-mail our statute (in Dutch).

The statute is similar to that of other Dutch newspapers with a strict Chinese wall between news department and commercial departments. There is no evidence NU.NL has any political agenda. Applicants target group is broad and they do allow replies of readers - which helps to neutralize any possible bias.

Our readers must be able to check our sources themselves. In the published articles we give enough details to do so. We share links from websites of our sources, we explain why we consulted a particular expert on the topic. We do not have a published public policy, but again we work according to the Bordeaux Code.

The online newssite uses hyperlinks to sources by default and allows users to follow the "train of facts" easily.

Sanoma Media Netherlands B.V. is part of the listed Sanoma Group, a media and education company that provides information and entertainment for millions of people in many European countries. We have listed its ownership in the about section: https://www.nu.nl/colofon.html

There is no breakdown how Nu Factcheck is financed besides generic hyperlink to the mother company. Our advise is that Nu.nl makes a page where they explain if they receive specific funding for this project  - which started with the help of Facebook  in 2017 - or that they pay for the fact checking completely themselves as is already stated in a news article

http://www.nu.nl/colofon.html

The organization has also added short biographies of the staff working on the project: https://www.nu.nl/blog/4930679/redacteuren-dagelijks-factchecken-nunl.html available from the main page of the project https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt

http://www.nu.nl/colofon.html

Applicant provides a link that isn't the offical contact page of their own brand. That link is https://www.nu.nl/contact.html and includes SMS/Whatsapp/Telegram contact  - information that is not on the page that apllicant provided.

http://www.nu.nl/blog/4509129/redactieblog-waarom-nunl-helpt-met-factchecken-facebook.htm

http://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/4778466/nucheckt-meld-mogelijk-nepnieuws-facebook.html

The provided link is incorrect and should read https://www.nu.nl/blog/4509129/redactieblog-waarom-nunl-helpt-met-factchecken-facebook.html

That link roughly explains why they teamed up with Facebook, but doesn't include any information about what steps Nu.Nl take themselves in the editorial process.

The second link http://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/4778466/nucheckt-meld-mogelijk-nepnieuws-facebook.html is about how to report fake news yourself and doesn't reveal anything about the way Nu.nl workflow for fact checking.

We suggest that applicant explains  methodology a little better.

http://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/4778466/nucheckt-meld-mogelijk-nepnieuws-facebook.html

This link provided by applicant is irrelevant because it explains how users can file suspicious news to Facebook, not to Nu.Nl. 

We found, although not provided by applicant, that Nu Factcheck does have a place where they invite readers to submit a fact check: at the end of each fact check article. There is no dedicated section for this.

http://www.nu.nl/klachten.html

The link provided leads to a generic email address.

In our work as fact checkers we have not yet come across a correction request. However, at NU.nl we have a close relationship with our readers. They can respond directly to each article, and then be in direct contact with our so called NUjij-editors. When a fix is necessary, we'll fix the error.

In https://www.nu.nl/nucheckt/4829790/nucheckt-gaf-nunl-onjuist-aantal-demonstranten-baudet.html?redirect=1 Nu.nl admit themselves that they made an unlucky error, see also https://politiek.tpo.nl/2017/07/11/nu-nl-geeft-toe-we-zaten-fout-met-cijfers-demonstratie-tegen-thierry-baudet/

The interaction with readers, also on fact checking articles, is very open. This allows Nu Factcheck to change or edit small or big errors. There is no transparancy like New York Times where you can always see if an edit has been made or an error has been fixed and also when and why the edit was made.