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

The documentation provided proves that Observador is a legally constituted journalistic company. The organization also publishes company registration information on its website.

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.

The applicant is a media company that has a fact-checking section. This section has its coordination, but all journalists in the newsroom can publish checks, as stated in the application. Several professionals signed the various fact-checks accessed in this assessment.

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.

The applicant produces many fact-checking reports, published in text and audio, far surpassing the average weekly amount required by this application.

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

The fact-checks of Observador cover a wide range of subjects, from politics to entertainment, with a preponderance of checks on suspicious content related to the pandemic. As a rule, these contents could cause some damage to people's knowledge or well-being. Therefore, this assessment considers that the applicant publishes clarification work that is useful and necessary for society.

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."

The information and links provided by the applicant make it clear what its financing method is, how the organization is structured, and indicate that there is no type of control by government, parties, or politicians. However, one of the links provided ( https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/) is only available to subscribers (as seen in the file attached to this item). This assessment recommends removing that obstacle and giving more prominence to the page.

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

The organization guarantees that it does not receive funding from any local or foreign state or political sources.

As we always did, in our 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. And, over the last one and a half years, the pandemics — and all the missinformation around it — has 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) The prime-minister was "Wrong", in this example:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-psd-apresentou-senhora-do-chega-como-candidata-a-camara-da-amadora-como-diz-antonio-costa/

2) The prime-minister was "Right", in this case:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-novo-apoio-social-do-governo-abrange-mais-do-dobro-das-pessoas-que-a-proposta-inicial-do-be/

3) And, finally, we classified the prime-minister as having been "Misleading", here:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-orcamento-do-sns-vai-mesmo-aumentar-805-milhoes-de-euros-em-2021-como-disse-o-primeiro-ministro/

4) Multiple fact checks that came out of the coverage of a political party congress (in this case, PAN). We've had classifications that went from "Right" (2) to "Misleading" (2) and "Wrong" (1):

https://observador.pt/especiais/a-estocada-nas-touradas-o-preco-da-corrupcao-e-o-dossier-novo-banco-fact-check-ao-congresso-do-pan/

5) Another example of a political party congress (Chega) we've covered. Classifications went from Right (2) to "Almost Right" (1) and Wrong (4):

https://observador.pt/especiais/pensoes-conta-bancaria-do-primeiro-ministro-militantes-e-debates-quinzenais-fact-check-ao-discurso-de-abertura-do-congresso-do-chega/

6) We've classified one statement from the Portuguese President as "Wrong":

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-marcelo-foi-o-unico-presidente-a-participar-num-debate-com-todos-os-candidatos-a-belem/

7) We've also classified the Portuguese President as being "Right" during the last presidential campaign:

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-maior-numero-de-vetos-de-marcelo-foi-em-2019-e-nao-em-2020/

Apart from Politics, we cover a wide range of subjects with our fact checks. 

8) An example of a fact check on the Pandemic (namely, on the alleged constraints people are subjected to if they are vaccinated with the Pfizer jab, classified as "Misleading"):

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-vacina-da-pfizer-obriga-a-um-mes-de-abstinencia-sexual/

9) On a social media post, the subtitles of a public speech from the Chinese President were edited in order to transmit a false message. We've classified it as being "Wrong":

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-presidente-chines-ameacou-com-o-inicio-de-uma-nova-guerra-mundial/

10) Several posts on social media attributed a certain sentence to Albert Einstein. Our classification: "Wrong":

https://observador.pt/factchecks/fact-check-einstein-disse-que-jovens-revolucionarios-socialistas-sao-vagabundos-sustentados-pelo-pai-capitalista/

Each and every one of our fact checks is selected because they either (I) raise doubts on the accuracy of the claim produced or (II) are clearly not in accordance to what is considered to be factual. Considering the first three examples given above, we've confronted the prime-minister's claims (1) with the political background of the candidate from an opponent party, (2) the official documents on the impact of social benefits provided by the Government, crossing it with what was the opponent party's proposal and (3) the official budget presented by the Portuguese government in order to evaluate if the claim was plausible.

This process is applied to each fact check we work on, something we underlined in the article "What are the new Observador Fact Checks like?" (https://observador.pt/especiais/como-vao-ser-os-novos-fact-checks-do-observador/). Namely when we make it clear that we follow the IFCN code of principles, amongst which we find the principle of non-alignment, under which we commit ourselves to verify every statement using the same pattern and not concentrating our verifications in one side or the other.

Then, as shown above, when evaluating each claim, we confront it with the experts and official documentation and data available, in order to assess its accuracy. Always following the same process in order to guarantee our objectivity and independence.

We also make it clear that, when verifying a claim, we do not start that process with a pre-determined result in mind.

The analysis of the links provided and other verification reports evaluated on this assessment unequivocally demonstrate that the selection criteria consider the suspicion of the statements. It happens without there found any evidence of favoring governments, parties, or politicians. The applicant also makes it clear when it produces fact-checking as part of Facebook's third-party program.

Published reports follow similar narrative structures and are concerned with contextualizing the information. The accessed fact-checks also explain why the investigated content received the given classification.

Two of the ten reports shared by the applicant were accessible only to subscribers.

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/

There were no signs of favoring any side or undue concentration of fact-checking on any side of the political spectrum.

Observer states on a page of its website that it decides to open a fact check "whenever someone makes a statement that raises questions in public space."

The assessment found no evidence of relevant interests from the sources that required a disclaimer from the applicant. Nor does it from any commercial or other relationships that might influence the conclusions of the fact-checking.

No evidence of advocacy or favoring any government, party, or politician was found on the fact-checks evaluated. On the contrary, Observador fact-checking reports are careful with the contextualization and accuracy of the facts.

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.

Observador declares that it follows the IFCN code of principles and the Portuguese Constitution and Press Law terms. The applicant claims that it cannot, by law, prevent journalists from exercising their rights to political participation. However, it makes sure that none of its journalists incur any incompatibility in this area.

The applicant provides links so that users can themselves validate the consulted sources. However, we found some information used by the Observador that referred to secondary sources, news sites, or other fact-checking organizations, and a few others that did not contain links to the originals. As the entire newsroom feeds the checking session, it is probably necessary that some patterns need reassertion.

Fact-checkings consulted by this assessment didn't detect cases in which the disclosure of a source could risk its safety.

The applicant uses reliable primary and secondary sources but does not explain why it eventually uses secondary sources.

The fact-checks accessed in this assessment are conclusive and convincing. The verification duly treated suspicious information, facts, and data present in the investigated contents.

In the fact-checks accessed by this assessment, I did not find any case in which relevant interests were identified from the consulted sources. This absence, however, does not spoil the accuracy of any of these fact-checks.

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/

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/

The article in question is now open and it is available for all readers to consult it, whether they're Observador's subscribers or not.

The applicant is a news website with a fact-checking section and is already a subscriber to the IFCN code of principles. Although the page, which the link was provided in the application, gives information on how the section was structured, it was published in February 2017 and is accessible only to subscribers. It is essential, due to transparency, that this content is available to all readers.

The applicant is a news website with a fact-checking section and is already a subscriber to the IFCN code of principles. Although the page, which the link was provided in the application, gives information on how the section was structured, it was published in February 2017 and is accessible only to subscribers. It is essential, due to transparency, that this content is available to all readers.

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

The applicant presents on the two pages provided for this item the list of shareholders and declares its commitment to the independence of its journalistic coverage.

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

On the Ficha Técnica page of its website, Observador displays the organization's structure and lists its teams and their respective positions in the management, editorial, and other support areas.

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/rtavares, also here https://observador.pt/perfil/asuspiro/ and here https://observador.pt/perfil/dpereira/.

On the Autores page of its website, Observador introduces its editorial staff. The page displays a photo, name, title, and the working area of each journalist. By clicking on the journalist's name, the reader goes to a page with bio, email, and produced articles.

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/

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/

Observador publishes a statement on a page of its website describing its methodology, its scope of fact-checking, and its commitment to the IFCN code of principles. The code was translated into Portuguese. This page, however, is accessible only to subscribers, as mentioned earlier in this assessment.

In the fact-checkings accessed, Observador informs readers of the origin of the suspect content and why it is being investigated. In most of these checks, the reasons given are generic, mentioning misinformation's spreadable or possible contamination of the public debate. The applicant does not inform data on the scope of the content it investigates.

The fact-checks observed follow the methodology expressed in the applicant's statements and are following the IFCN code of principles. The conclusions of the fact-checkings were convincing.

Although some fact-checks use publications from other media as evidence to its conclusion, the assessment identified no differences in the standards applied to the equivalent claims. 

Observador checks claims published on social media and never mentions attempts to listen to those who disseminated the investigated content in its reports. When the investigation falls on some statement by a politician or public person, usually, that statement was published by a third party. And, in these cases, the applicant seeks evidence that refutes or proves the investigated content from distinct sources, often in the media and historical records.

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-foi-instalado-um-pilarete-sem-sentido-junto-a-um-predio-na-avenida-da-liberdade/

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 os power — political, judicial, financial.

Observador publishes an invitation to its readers to propose corrections or send suggestions at the end of each fact-check. And it adds the email of the journalist who checked it to the text.

On a page describing its methodology, the applicant also declares that it provides readers with all the data they have accessed and, whenever possible, provides links so that readers can access the sources of information and confirm the conclusions of the check.

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 link at the bottom of the page to its error correction policy. It is a very detailed and valid policy for the entire website. There is more specific information about correcting checking errors and an email for reporting errors on the page describing its fact-checking methodology. This page, however, as already mentioned in this assessment, is accessible only to subscribers.

The policy is very clear, and the applicant undertakes to correct the information, publicize the correction, and assess the causes to avoid repetition of errors in the future.

2. In a fact check on the privatization of the company Grounforce (which provide services to the Portuguese flying company TAP), we began by classifying it as "Streched". Later, we were provided with more detailed information on the context (and implications) of that process and we've added those data to the original text, changing the classification to "Almost Right". This update was clarified in the article, apart from the main text: https://observador.pt/factchecks/governo-psd-cds-decidiu-pagar-a-alfredo-casimiro-para-comprar-a-groundforce/

In the links provided by the applicant, the use of the error policy can be seen. Corrections are well visible in the text.

It was impossible to know if the applicant gave publicity to the correction to reach those who accessed the original publication.

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).

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 readers consider that Observador has violated that code, readers can report it directly to the IFCN. 

Also in that ninth question of the Q&A article — where Observador declares itself an IFCN signatory —, we specifically mention that "anytime they consider that the IFCN's Code of Principles may have been broken, our readers may report that information directly to the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, through the form available at the institution's website", and we link the text to this form: https://www.ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/complaints-policy

Observador published a page 4 years ago declaring compliance with the IFCN code of principles and presenting it translated into Portuguese. It also includes the IFCN badge on all fact-checking pages. There is, however, no allusion to the possibility of readers forwarding any complaint to the IFCN that the applicant may be violating the code, nor a link to do so.

Observador published a page 4 years ago declaring compliance with the IFCN code of principles and presenting it translated into Portuguese. It also includes the IFCN badge on all fact-checking pages. There is, however, no allusion to the possibility of readers forwarding any complaint to the IFCN that the applicant may be violating the code, nor a link to do so.

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

In this case — https://observador.pt/2021/01/10/documento-do-conselho-europeu-contraria-costa-erros-sobre-jose-guerra-fundamentaram-nomeacao/ —, we indicate that we've made two corrections to the original article: 

1) the data on the document revealed by the public Portuguese broadcaster RTP;

2) the errors underlined by on the document sent to the European Council that led to the selection on José Guerra for the Portuguese seat on the European Public Prosecutor's Office

In this case — https://observador.pt/especiais/prr-governo-quer-dar-primazia-a-banca-sobre-familias-quando-vendedor-de-casa-vai-para-insolvencia/ —, we've update the article with informations sent by the Government and with the experts reactions

"Fact Check" is the name of the Observador checking session. The web news channel has a clear and detailed error correction policy, accessible from every page of the website. Observador provided two links as proof of application of its error policy. In one of them, it is clear the reason and the time the website corrected. It was not possible to evaluate the other case because it is content accessible only to subscribers.