In our “Terms and Conditions” page we have information about our official registration, with the legal number “510 914 713”: https://observador.pt/termos-e-condicoes/

Observador's official registration can be consulted on the Portuguese media regulatory entity's (Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social — ERC) website: https://www.erc.pt/pt/listagem-registos-na-erc

The list of Portuguese media outlets registered in ERC can be verified here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZARbjGMx0yFL9L2e8FJAM-omEDlvleqzCExx49ZD_KE/edit#gid=1593084030

Observador Fact Check is a section of Observador, a digital news outlet owned by Grupo Observador, registered under the legal number "510 914 713" in Lisbon, Portugal.

1. Observador was the first Portuguese media outlet to publish, in a regular and sustainable way, Fact Checks. That happened one year after Observador was launched. We've started publishing this articles in 2015 when we considered there was an editorial need for this content.

2. In practical terms, all journalists in Observador (website and radio) may contribute to our fact checks at some point. We have around 40 elements in the newsroom (between editors and journalists) and the majority of them regularly writes fact checks. There is also a Fact Check coordinator who is responsible for editing the articles, but every editor in Observador can be called at any time to discuss an article.

3. Observador is a news outlet focused on publishing editorial content.

4. We have a consolidated fact-checking operation. On top of aiming to maintain the current level of productivity, we would like to diverse the type of contents available to our readers. We are evaluating on the best format in order to add video fact checks to our texts and audio contents over the next year.

1. According to the organization, Observador was the first Portuguese media outlet to publish fact-checks. The initiative was launched in 2015.

2. There is no evidence indicating the exact number of individuals who work directly within the unit. However, the organization has informed that all journalists, amounting to approximately 40 people, have the potential to contribute to the fact-checking initiative.

3. The organization did not specify the various types of activities that the fact-checking initiative undertakes. However, it is observed on their website that they produce fact-check podcasts (https://observador.pt/programas/fact-check-2/) and have had past a partnership with TVI to produce the television program "A Hora da Verdade" in the past.

4. According to the Observador, they aim to strengthen its fact-checking operations. In addition to striving to maintain the current level of productivity, they have plans to diversify the types of content available to their readers, such as video and audio.

Each month, we publish an average of 50 to 70 fact checks, most of them written articles (a small percentage of them exclusively in audio format — a product that comes from our daily Fact Checks feature in Radio Observador).

All of this content is available to be read/heard in our Fact Check section, here: https://observador.pt/seccao/observador/fact-check/

As a mere example, in may, we've published 90 pieces of content, between written and audio fact checks. This content was published, as always, throughout the month.

Observador has provided a link to its fact-checks. The organization publishes an average of fewer than two fact-checks per month. What's significant is that the applicant exceeds the minimum requirement of publishing at least one fact-check per week.

All our fact checks are published here: https://observador.pt/seccao/observador/fact-check/

Observador's fact-checks cover a broad range of topics, including health, the economy, conflicts, and societal concerns. They primarily focus on viral rumors and hoaxes circulating on online social media. These fact-checks are related to current news events both in Portugal and on a global scale.

In our site, we have a list of all our shareholders (under the title “Estrutura Acionista”). They are presented according to the amount of shares they hold: http://observador.pt/ficha-tecnica/.

We've also published an article with all the answers readers might have about the project, including funding and organization: http://observador.pt/explicadores/tudo-o-que-precisa-de-saber-sobre-o-observador/

Observador is totally independent from political entities: that applies to the editorial field as well as to our funding principles. This means we do not have any relationship with political parties, politicians or to the state.

In our website, we have a link to our editorial principles (http://observador.pt/estatuto-editorial/) where we make clear that “Observador is an online daily, independent and free” and that “Observador seeks the truth and is only binded by facts. We will never be pressured by political party or economical or group interests. We are accountable only to our readers”.

Our non-partisanship policy is explained here https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/ (question number 10).

There is also a complete article explaining all there is to know about Observador. There, we answer to the question "Who pays [or finances] Observador?" (https://observador.pt/explicadores/tudo-o-que-precisa-de-saber-sobre-o-observador/). In clear terms we say: "Publicity." But we also name those we do not count on to fund ourselves: all of "those who look at Journalism not as an independent entity providing public service but, instead, as an activity interested in other games of power and money."

Observador is highly transparent in its operations and relationships with its shareholders. The organization has explicitly stated that it has no commercial, financial, or institutional ties to the state, politicians, or political parties. However, there is a lack of information on their website regarding foreign funding, which might come from platforms like Meta, given their participation in the fact-checking program. To enhance transparency, it would be advisable for the organization to include this information on its Q&A page.

Non applicable (we do not receive funding from local or foreign states or political sources)

As previously mentioned, the organization does not receive funding or support from state or political actors.This information was provided by their link above.

In Observador's fact checks, we cover the complete political spectrum: the President, the prime-minister, a wide variety of ministers, the parties that support the government, and the opposition parties. Each political actor has already had, of course, positive and negative conclusions.

We have also being paying close attention debunking fake news spreading throughout social media. Over the last year and a half, the war in Ukraine — and all the misinformation around it — has also occupied a fair amount of our time and efforts.

We also have a wide range of conclusions, so as not to have black-or-white decisions: “Right”, “Almost Right”, “Far-Fetched”, “Inconclusive”, “Misleading” and “Wrong”.

Next, we provide ten examples of what we've just stated.

1) Last July, we've had the usual State of the Nation debate in our national Parliament. Covering that debate, we've verified (and debunked) claims from the Prime-minister ("Almost entirely right") to political leaders of the opposition (from "right" to "almost entirely right", "misleading" and "false"). Here:

https://observador.pt/especiais/fact-check-as-mentiras-as-imprecisoes-e-as-verdades-do-estado-da-nacao/

2) In this case, the leader of an opposition party (Chega) was claiming that "thousands" of citizens from foreign countries (mainly, Africa) had come to Portugal to participate in World Youth Day and had taken that opportunity to escape the immigration authorities and enter the European territory. There was no clear evidence of a situation with that magnitude. You can see it here:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-milhares-de-inscritos-na-jornada-mundial-da-juventude-estao-desaparecidos/

3) Here, the Bank of Portugal's governor is accused of inviting young people to immigrate in order to find better life conditions. Supposedly, he had said that statement (which has an entire political context behind it) in an interview. The claim was false:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-mario-centeno-aconselhou-os-jovens-a-emigrar/

4) The Portuguese Ministry of Defense is accused of raising the LBGTQI+ flag in the ministry's building instead of the Portuguese national flag. Again, it was a false claim:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-ministerio-da-defesa-icou-a-bandeira-lgbtqi-em-vez-da-bandeira-nacional/

5) The Prime-minister and the President of the Portuguese Republic were accused of going to a football match from the national team rather then participating in a ceremony to pay respects to the victims of a major fire in 2017. There were errors on the dates mentioned in the claim.

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-marcelo-e-costa-preferiram-ver-jogo-da-selecao-a-homenagear-vitimas-dos-incendios-de-2017/

6) We found a claim stating that the members of the national Parliament were all "dependent" of the Free Masonry. Apart from the fact that the data was outdated, the informations were also distorted:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-dos-230-deputados-206-dependem-da-maconaria/

7) A political and social activist from the left wing was attributed statements that he had never made:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-mamadou-ba-disse-que-ate-a-natureza-por-vezes-e-racista-em-entrevista-a-revista-visao/

8) In a time where the Housing policies were being subjected to important legislative changes, the Prime-minister was accused of being, himself, acting against the news rules implemented by the Government:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-antonio-costa-tem-cinco-casas-que-evita-arrendar/

9) Two left wing opposition parties (and former alies of the Socialist Government) were presented has having adopted different positions regarding the Educational sector, when they had a political arrangement with the Government and after that arrangement had come to an end:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-pcp-e-be-estiveram-calados-sobre-manifestacoes-de-professores-durante-a-geringonca/

10) A former Presidential candidate (affiliated with the Socialist Party but often a critical voice of the Socialist Government) was attributed statements that she never made about the political leader of a right wing party (Chega):

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-ana-gomes-disse-que-se-andre-ventura-estivesse-preso-nada-disto-estaria-a-acontecer/

As request, Observador has effectively demonstrated strives to cover a wide range of diverse topics and its non-partisanship by providing ten instances of fact-checks carried out on political leaders and parties spanning the entire political spectrum in Portugal, from the prime-minister António Costa (left wing) to the Party Chega (far right Party).

In the article "Como são os novos Fact Checks do Observador" ("What are the new Observador Fact Checks like?"), we explain our policy for choosing and classifying claims. Namely, in the question "O Observador só faz Fact Checks quando acha que alguém está a fazer declarações erradas?" ("Observador only Fact Checks claims that are considered to be wrong"), we explain that we "decide to Fact Check claims that raise doubts in the public space" and we add that we "don't start any investigation with a closed mind set on what the conclusions [and classifications] will be". That article can be consulted here: https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

Apart from that, and addressing the point on how can readers propose us fact checks, we have an email available exclusively for our fact checking project, that can be used to send corrections or suggestions of future Fact Checks (factcheck@observador.pt). We have also publicized it in our article announcing our new fact checking formats: http://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

And, at the end of each Fact Check, we have, near the “Share” and “Comments” area, the emails to which readers can send corrections or suggestions (view, for example, here: https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-proposta-de-os-pre-reformados-trabalharem-em-part-time-e-do-cds/

In the article titled "Como são os novos Fact Checks do Observador" ("What are the new Observador Fact Checks like?"), the organization explains its policy for selecting and categorizing claims. They mention that they decide to fact-check claims that raise doubts in the public space and emphasize that they don't initiate any investigation with preconceived conclusions or classifications in mind.

Furthermore, the organization has informed readers that they can suggest content for fact-checking or corrections via email (factcheck@observador.pt).

After conducting a random review of fact-checks published since September 2022, no indications of any commercial interests that could potentially influence the fact-checking activities of the applicant were found. The initiative maintains a commitment to journalistic neutrality, consistently disclosing relevant interests associated with the sources cited in its fact-checks. This level of transparency allows readers to make informed assessments regarding any potential impact on the accuracy of the evidence presented.

After conducting a random review of fact-checks published since September 2022, no affiliations with any political party, politicians, or political candidates were identified. Moreover, there is no discernible promotion of or opposition to specific policy positions on any issues within the fact-checks. These verifications cover a broad range of topics and political spectrum, encompassing viewpoints from the far-right to the left.

As mentioned, Observador has a non-partisanship policy, which is explained here: https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/ (question number 10).

There, we make it clear that, according to the Portuguese legislation, the organization cannot prevent journalists from exercising their political participation rights. However, in accordance to its non-partisanship policy, and for the sake of transparency and independence, the company complies to make sure that none of its journalists incurs in any kind of incompatibility in this area.

The organization makes it clear in the provided link that, according to Portuguese legislation, they cannot prohibit journalists from exercising their political participation rights. However, Observador, in line with its non-partisanship policy and in the interest of transparency and independence, ensures that none of its journalists engage in any form of incompatibility in this regard.

By using a randomized sample, I can confirm that Observador extensively incorporates links to substantiate its fact-checks. These resources empower users to verify by themselves the relevant information presented by this fact-checking initiative.

Upon analyzing a randomized sample, it becomes evident that Observador consistently supports its fact-checks with a diverse and pertinent range of sources. Whenever applicable, primary sources such as government entities, open data sources from official bodies, and recognized institutions in the field (e.g., NASA)  are utilized. Additionally, secondary sources are referenced in these reports, primarily news articles from reputable and trustworthy media outlets like BBC. There are also references to news articles produced by Observador. These sources play a complementary role, either reinforcing the fact-checking conclusions or providing readers with additional context.

After conducting a random review of various fact-checks published in the past year, the overall evaluation for this criterion is positive. Specifically, the applicant consistently verifies all crucial components of claims against multiple named sources of evidence, except in cases where a single source is the only relevant one on the topic.

Observador consistently identifies them and provides context, allowing readers to evaluate their fact-checks. These sources are publicly accessible, and their significance in the verifications is clear.

Our Fact Check section is integrated in the Observador's newsroom.

In the article where we provide information about our fact checks, we describe how Observador's activity in this section is integrated in our broader editorial work: https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

As requested, the applicant provided a link where it is stated that the fact-checking section is integrated within Observador's newsroom.

From day one, Observador has always been completely transparent about who its shareholders are. The information regarding that specific topic is available here: https://observador.pt/explicadores/tudo-o-que-precisa-de-saber-sobre-o-observador/, under the topic "Estrutura Acionista". We name each of our shareholders and provide up to date information on who they are and the amount of shares they hold. More information available here: https://observador.pt/ficha-tecnica/

Questions related to the project, including on funding and organization, can be clarified through the first link.

In the provided link, the applicant clearly explains Observador's shareholder structure, indicating that the majority shareholder is the entrepreneur Luís Amaral, holding more than 40% of the capital.

All the information on the editorial structure (and the several levels of editorial managing responsibilities) is available here: https://observador.pt/ficha-tecnica/

The editorial structure is outlined on the website. In regard to the fact-checking team, it emphasizes that Pedro Raínho serves as the deputy editor of the Society and the coordinator of the Fact Checks section.

We have a page with all the journalists of Observador. All of them can, at any time, write a fact check: http://observador.pt/autores/

We encourage our journalists to present their biographies in their personal pages. Examples can be seen here https://observador.pt/perfil/cdsantos/, also here https://observador.pt/perfil/ifigueiredo/ and here https://observador.pt/perfil/dulceneto/.

We have a page with all the journalists of Observador. All of them can, at any time, write a fact check: http://observador.pt/autores/

We encourage our journalists to present their biographies in their personal pages. Examples can be seen here https://observador.pt/perfil/cdsantos/, also here https://observador.pt/perfil/ifigueiredo/ and here https://observador.pt/perfil/dulceneto/.

Following the Assessor's remarks, we've updated our "Autores" page in order for it to include all of our Journalist professional pages. Also, the Journalists have updated their bio's page on our website.

As the organization stated that all journalists produce fact-checks, the provided link contains profiles of all authors on their website. However, it may not include author bios for all profiles. Regarding Pedro Raínho, who serves as the Deputy Editor of Society and the Coordinator of the Fact Checks section, his page is not available in the provided link (http://observador.pt/autores/), and in his bio, there is no information about his role as the coordinator of the Fact Checks section (https://observador.pt/perfil/pmrainho/).

The organization has indicated that all journalists produce fact-checks, and the provided link includes profiles of all authors on their website. The organization has updated some profiles, including Pedro Raínho, who now identifies as the Coordinator of the Fact Checks section, as detailed in the provided link (https://observador.pt/perfil/pmrainho/).

At the end of every fact check, we ask our readers to get in touch with our journalists. Those emails can be used for the purpose of proposing corrections or sending information on potential new fact checks to our journalist, but it can be — and it actually is — used to pass along tips on new investigations, additional information on a certain subject and so on. Example here: https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-estados-unidos-impedem-vacinados-contra-a-covid-19-de-darem-sangue/

Plus, in the article "What are the new Observador Fact Check like?" we reinforce that request, directing them to the email created for that purpose (factcheck@observador.pt). Here: https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

In all fact-checks, the organization informs the reader that they can send corrections or request verifications via email. Additionally, in their link "What are the new Observador Fact Checks like?", they reiterate this request.

We provide that type of information in two different articles.

One is the translation of the International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers’ code of principles (http://observador.pt/2017/02/08/codigo-de-principios-para-fact-checks/), which we have adopted.

The other is an article about the general principles and methodology we follow in our fact checks: http://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

We provide that type of information in two different articles.

One is the translation of the International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers’ code of principles (http://observador.pt/2017/02/08/codigo-de-principios-para-fact-checks/), which we have adopted and have made available to all of our reader's, subscribers or not.

The other is an article about the general principles and methodology we follow in our fact checks, where we explain, with more detail, what we consider to be verifiable claims what falls out of our scope. Also, we've made it more clear on what we consider to be valid sources of information when we put a verification in process: http://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

While the organization has provided two links indicating how they select, research, write, and publish articles, there are some issues to note. The first link is behind a paywall, which may not be in line with transparency practices. The second link offers a brief explanation of how they select, research, write, and publish fact-checks. It would be beneficial for readers if this explanation included more detailed information for better transparency.

The organization has shared two links outlining their processes for selecting, researching, writing, and publishing articles, both of which are now accessible to the public. The first link provides a translation of the International Fact-Checking Network fact-checkers' code of principles and identifies other organizations that have endorsed it. The second link offers a brief overview of how they conduct the selection, research, writing, and publishing of fact-checks. It would be advantageous for readers if this explanation included more detailed information to enhance transparency.

After conducting a random review of several fact-checks published by Observador, no instances of infringement were identified. This suggests that the initiative complies with this criterion by addressing matters of social significance and reach, with much of their content originating from online social media.

Based on a random sample, Observador presents claims and arguments in a responsible manner. They provide pertinent evidence both in favor of and against the claims in their fact-checks. There is no indication of varying fact-checking standards based on the source of the claim or the subject under scrutiny. The initiative appears to consistently apply the same fact-checking standards, regardless of whether the claims are true or false.

In the majority of randomly analyzed fact-checking reports, the authorship of the fact-checked statement is mentioned. Some reports include statements made by the authors of the claims, while in others, there is information indicating that the author could not be identified or did not respond to the questions from the applicant. Additionally, most verifications debunk misleading content without focusing on a specific author, targeting diverse pages and profiles instead.

While finding an exact equivalent number of claims from different points on the political spectrum can be challenging, Observador consistently upholds a balanced approach when evaluating claims. As previously noted, they have fact-checked claims across the entire political spectrum, including statements made by the left-wing prime minister and the far-right party Chega. This evidence suggests that their fact-checking practices are conducted in a responsible manner, with no significant bias apparent.

Based on the random sample, no objectionable situations related to this criterion have been identified. The initiative consistently makes efforts to contact individuals who have made claims for clarification. However, it's acknowledged that in cases involving viral social media posts, this may not always be possible.

As mentioned before, at the end of every fact check that we publish, there is a reference aimed at our readers, encouraging them to send us proposals of possible fact checks. Example attached and here: https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-livre-promoveu-espetaculo-drag-com-entrada-gratuita-para-criancas/

In the article mentioned earlier, where we detail more on our fact checks, we make it clear that it is our goal to constantly scrutinize all the different levels of power — political, judicial, financial.

As mentioned before, at the end of every fact check that we publish, there is a reference aimed at our readers, encouraging them to send us proposals of possible fact checks. Example attached and here: https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-livre-promoveu-espetaculo-drag-com-entrada-gratuita-para-criancas/

In the article mentioned earlier, where we detail more on our fact checks, we make it clear that it is our goal to constantly scrutinize all the different levels of power — political, judicial, financial.

Humour, satire, opinions are beyond what we consider to be verifiable claims. And, for that reason, we do not fact check them. We've made that point clearer in the article where we explain our work methodology.

Observador actively encourages users to submit claims for fact-checking via email. This information is available in this link (https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/). However, it's important to note that the organization should make clear the types of claims they do not verify, such as opinions and forecasts. This information should be outlined on the linked page for greater transparency.

Observador actively encourages users to submit claims for fact-checking via email. This information is available in this link (https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/). The organization has made adjustments to make clear the types of claims they do not verify, such as opinions and forecasts.

There is an article published on Observador's website (“Como são os novos Fact Checks do Observador?”) that explains, amongst other topics, that we have an open, transparent and honest corrections policy: http://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/.

We address this issue specifically, in the question “O Observador acha que os Fact Checks são infalíveis?” (“Does Observador think its Fact Checks are infallible?”).

Here, we explain that, when there are any mistakes, we will correct the article and explicitly refer what corrections were made. We also provide the email any reader can use for corrections at the end of each article. We actively ask our readers to provide us with more information on the claims we debunk, if and when they detect a mistake.

Observador has a well-defined correction policy in place, and users can report errors by emailing "factcheck@observador.pt." This contributes to transparency and accountability in their fact-checking process.

Observador's team commits on their website to analyze all requests for corrections they receive. When they confirm an error, they make the necessary changes to the fact-checking story, correct the information, and evaluate what went wrong to prevent the error from happening again. Therefore, if readers detect any inaccuracies in their Fact Checks, they are encouraged to send the information, along with supporting documents and sources, to the email "factcheck@observador.pt."

Over the last year, we had no situations of an article having to to be corrected, either because of an external request or due to an internal flagging of errors. 

The organization, Observador, has not provided specific examples or links illustrating how their team has responded to a reader's inquiry regarding an inconsistency in their fact-checks. They claim that they have had no situations where an article had to be corrected due to either external requests or internal flagging of errors. This suggests that they have not had to address significant inconsistencies or errors in their fact-checks.

We let our readers know that we follow the IFCN code of principles in this article: https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/

Namely, in the question "Observador's Fact Checks follow any Code of Conduct", where we also explain that, if we are considered to have violated that code, readers can report it directly to the IFCN (we also provide the correspondent link to that effect).

The applicant offers a link that directs readers to an IFCN page, allowing them to file a complaint if they believe the initiative is in violation of the IFCN Code. Consequently, the applicant is in compliance with this criterion.

Observador's correction policy can be consulted here: https://observador.pt/politica-de-correcoes/

The applicant has a correction policy that applies to the entire organization, and this policy aligns with the principles of transparency and openness in corrections. Therefore, the applicant is in compliance with this criterion.