Demagog.SK is a project by Slovak Governance Institute (Inštitút pre dobre spravovanú spoločnosť), a research non-governmental organization.

https://www.governance.sk/stanovy/

https://demagog.sk/o-nas

Footer of the website also includes the information about SGI.

Demagog.SK is not a stand-alone legal entity, however, it is a distinct project of the Slovak Governance Institute (ID (SK): 36070629), which is clearly listed on the project website (see attachment).

1. Demagog.SK is factchecking politicians since 2010. Our goal was to confront the politicians taking part in TV debates with facts, as they had frequently based their arguments on claims that were not true.

2. The team consists of the head analyst responsible for the overall outcome, currently 5 junior analysts who are responsible for overseeing the work of interns (around 10 - 12 volunteers training in critical thinking and fact-checking).

3. In addition to factcheck, we do workshops for students and seniors in critical thinking. Recently we have started to record podcasts. Slovak Governance Institute, the organisation that Demagog.SK is a part of, focuses on research in the areas of good governance, transparency, and social inclusion. They also run the website and app “Odkaz pre starostu” or “Message to the Mayor” for easy digital communication between municipalities and citizens.

4. The main goal of Demagog.SK is to keep the political debate based on facts and evidence, and to point out any misleading or untrue claims that the politicians make. We believe that this is as vital as ever, as desinformation is more profound in the mainstream political debate. Over the coming year, we hope to tackle the increasing amount of desinformation spreading in the public space regarding the energy crisis and war in Ukraine.

According to the project's website, none of the project team members work as full-time fact-checkers.

However, this is understandably most likely due to the question of funding as the project likely cannot afford to hire a full-time dedicated team and should not, in my opinion, be treated as a disqualifying criterion.

The project team currently consists of 8 analysts and 13 interns, structured as follows:

• Veronika Hincová Frankovská – Project Manager and Chief Analyst
  
• Pavol Lacko – Critical Thinking Lecturer
  
  
• Kristína Janačková – Fact-Checker, currently studying at university
  
• Tobiáš Janko – Fact-Checker, currently studying at university
  
• Stanislav Baluch – Fact-Checker, currently studying at university
  
• Timotej Kováčik – Fact-checker, no additional information
• Kamila Kvasnicová – Fact-checker, no additional information
• Pavol Valík – Fact-checker, no additional information
  
  
• + 13 interns

This information is slightly different from what the Applicant has stated and the website should be updated accordingly. The team should also list bios of all team members beside interns and their photos of professional social media links (LinkedIn) would be welcome.

The educational activities of Demagog.sk go hand in hand with its fact-checking activity and I believe these two are complementary.

Demagog.SK publishes fact check once a week, one analysis of a TV debate containing usually over 20 factual claims made by politicians. In addition, we publish fact checks of politicians’ statements in social media. During the last 12 months, we had a break during Christmas, as there are no TV debates, and in november 2021 due to finishing project requirements. During July and August, the Demagog.SK team usually has summer break due to the break that the TV debates have, but we focused on irregular fact checking of social media during this time. In september, we have proceeded with regular weekly fact checks.

We strictly do not accept funding from political sources or state funding opportunities, such as grant programmes by ministries. 

As described by the Applicant, there is some fluctuation of the number of fact-checks related to TV debates breaks (Christmas/summer) which results in a fact-check not being published every single week.

While I would have appreciated a database of fact-checks provided by the Applicant, I was able to compile a simple database for the last 6 months (starting in June 2022) – over the last 6 months, Demagog.SK has fact-checked 15 different political TV debates and a total of 314 claims made within those debates.

All fact-checked debates are listed on a separate page within the project website (https://demagog.sk/diskusie).

All fact-checked claims are then listed on a different page (https://demagog.sk/vyroky). This list seems to include also fact-checks of claims made outside of the TV debates, however, some of these claims lack proper date and source (i.e. when and where they were made).

This should be corrected and I suggest either creating a separate page for social media claims or properly referencing them on the "all fact-checks" page, potentially creating another filter of the list based on claim source.

On the other hand, the total of 314 claims fact-checked over the last 6 months should, in my opinion, be considered as enough volume in terms of this application.

Using a compiled database of all fact-checked claims published since September 19, 2022 (a total of 76 claims), I assigned a category to each claim based on its contents. Overall, majority of claims have been related to either economy (over 44 % of claims, primarily related to inflation or high energy costs) or government/legislation (over 34 % of claims, primarily related to the governmental crisis in Slovakia), followed by topics such as Ukraine (10,35 %), crime (5,26 %) or infrastructure (3,95 %).

Altogether, I believe all these topics are highly relevant for the public in Slovakia and its well-being.

Demagog.SK strictly does not accept funding from political sources or state funding opportunities, such as grant programmes by ministries. During the 12 years of Demagog.SK, we have only been funded by independent programmes, individual or business donors.

Research projects of Slovak Governance Institute have been funded by programmes managed by the Ministry of Interior (EU Structural Funds) until 2020, but researchers of SGI have no influence over the content of Demagog.SK. 

The financial support of the project is described on a dedicated page (https://demagog.sk/donori).

The page lists all major financial contributions – in 2022, major contributions have been made by private foundations like Nadacia ESET or Férová nadácia O2, partnership with the Central European Digital EMdia Observatory (likely the biggest current donor) or the British Embassy in Bratislava and small individual donors.

While the Applicant states that detailed funding info can be found in annual reports of its parent organization, the Slovak Governance Institute (SGI), inspection of these reports showed that the funding chapter is not very detailed.

The funding web page is then essentially more clear than the annual reports and I believe the annual reports should contain a separate chapter on Demagog SK altogether since the Applicant mentions that SGI has no real influence over the Demagog SK content.

The identified information did not point to any funding from political entities (which is forbidden by the project's Code of Ethics) other than the British or the US embassies. Such support of non-profit organizations in Central and Eastern Europe by Western governents is quite frequent and in my opinion does not constitute a breach of the Code of Principles.

We do not receive funding from political or state sources.

As stated, the organization's Code of Ethics prohibits any funding from local political or state sources and no such funding has been identified.

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/korcok-a-fico-o-obrannej-dohode-s-usa

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/robert-fico-a-boris-kollar

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/tomas,-belusky,-viskupic-a-gyimesi

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/igor-matovic-na-ta3

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/zuzana-caputova-v-sobotnych-dialogoch

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/pellegrini-a-kolikova-v-na-telo

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/robert-kalinak-a-juraj-krupa-v-na-telo

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/matovic-a-tomas-v-na-telo

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/robert-fico-a-boris-kollar

https://demagog.sk/diskusia/igor-matovic-a-marian-viskupic-na-markize

In every analysis, usually the representatives of the government and opposition parties are factchecked, as this follows the dramaturgy of TV debates. The dramaturgy of TV debates is making our decisions easier, as they themselves strive for equal representation. When deciding which debate we are factchecking each week, we try to give comparable space to politicians from both opposition and government, varying the parties and their representatives.

When factchecking individual statements on social media, we aim to factcheck all relevant parties and therefore also publish true claims, but we also take the interest of the public into account and focus more on probably untrue or misleading statements, especially when they are a danger to health (such as covid-19 related misinformation) or security (war in Ukraine).

In the case of every factcheck, we follow the same strict standards according to our methodology and compare the claim to available reliable data. Every factcheck is seen by at least three people to minimize potential bias and all points of the analysis have to be supported by direct evidence and reliable sources. If we are unable to verify a claim, we label it as "unverifiable" and provide as much information as possible for the readers to form an opinion themselves.

The attached links to specific debates were used to select specific claims and 10 random claims were added to compile a fact-check sample.

The inspected sample shows a fairly balanced distribution between fact-checking government representatives and opposition representatives, sometimes independent (not memebers of any party) persons are also fact-checked.

Adequate explanation is given as the project team selects various TV debates on multiple channels to ensure fair representation of different parties.

After review of the fact-check sample, no clear partisan language or preferential treatment of different political representatives was identified.

https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme                            

While the linked website describes Demagog's methodology of work, I believe this could be somewhat improved. Concerning the evaluation of claims, the methodology web page states the following:

“What are we evaluating?

We are only looking at the verifiable claims of politicians. Such claims are those built on facts in various forms, whether they are numerical information, past actions of a person (votes on bills or statements), or historical events.

Any summary assessment can only be applied to these claims, not to the overall speech of politicians.

What are we not evaluating?

Political statements, value judgments, and predictions about the effects of some action. (Example: government action XY is good because it will cause an increase in employment.)

Non-evaluated statements may consist of verifiable statements that we observe. (Example: In 2006 in the election program we had a proposal to reduce the flat tax from 19 to 15% and it was realistic.)

On what basis do we evaluate?

Based on publicly available information, mostly from primary sources. Databases, statistics, press releases and published information from government, non-government and private institutions. All sources used to assess the truth value of statements are embedded via a hyperlink in the text of the statement verification. If it is not possible to find a publicly available source, we also consult with analysts working in the field.”

Who evaluates?

The selection of factual statements from the discussions is mostly done by one of the experts, then the selection is checked by another expert or methodologist. The initial processing of the verification of the factual statements, the tracing of the necessary relevant sources and the drafting of the verification text is done by the trainee, then checked and completed by the expert/expert. The truth value is then assigned to the statement based on the sources found and after discussion between the expert and the methodologist, in the case of more complex statements other experts are also involved in the discussion. The verification of the statement is thus checked by at least 3 people. More complex statements, as well as statements that are commented on by the public or politicians, are checked and approved by the whole expert team.

Commenting by politicians

Once the factual statements have been selected, each politician to be verified receives by email (to a publicly available email address) a list of factual statements with a reminder of the ongoing verification and the possibility to supply the sources from which the facts were obtained, if necessary. Like the public, politicians can comment on completed verifications of statements.”

There is no part of the methodology dedicated to the selection of claims themselves (reach, importance, sources) although I believe all these aspects are considered when selecting claims to be fact-checked.

I suggest expanding the methodology (potential inspiration can be found at the sister project of Demagog in the Czech Republic). Regardless, I consider this more as a recommendation to improve the webpage dedicated to methodology. Overall, the methodology is defined well enough to be compliant.

No relevant interests of sources were identified within the inspected fact-check sample. The vast majority of the sources used are either official information from the public sector or media outlets that have followed and published on the same topic (often adding more context). In some instances, authors of claims are contacted to provide sources of their claims and such contact is described at the end of the fact-check assessment.

No commerical relationships of Demagog SK were identified and no instances where such relationships would have to be disclosed were found within the inspected fact-check sample.

The project's Code of Ethics prohibits affiliation with any political entity or its support. No information pointing to activism/advocacy for specific policy positions have been identified.

However, some social media activity by the project's team members that could be understood as advocacy (described below with respect to 2.5) was identified and I believe this should be reslolved by expanding the CoE, specifically describing what social media activity by the team members is permissible (more information in 2.5).

https://demagog.sk/eticky-kodex/ 

https://demagog.sk/eticky-kodex/

We have updated the section of the updated Code of Ethics to include more detailed description as to behaviour on the social media. The posts that were described in the assesment will not happen in the future.

Demagog's Code of Ethics clearly states that:

• Demagog SK project collaborators and volunteers do not openly and systematically show affection or disagreement with politicians, political parties and movements;
• all meetings between Demagog.SK collaborators and politicians to discuss the project's findings are made public;
• to maintain the neutrality and impartiality of the project, collaborators and volunteers are not direct supporters of politically active individuals, movements or parties and avoid any behaviour that may be perceived as support for a political party or movement;
• we encourage people to participate actively in public life in ways that are consistent with our non-partisanship;

The CoE does not state how non-partisanship is ensured but its contents should disqualify any individuals who show partisanship from being a part of the project team.

I have inspected Facebook profiles of the main project team members (Veronika Frankovská, Pavol Lacko) and have to note that there are some, in my view, problematic posts.

While Mr Lacko does not seem to comment on politics on social media, Ms Frankovská has, on several occassions, shared posts or voiced support for specific politicians or parties. Even when focusing on the period when she has started to be the Project Manager (aka director) for Demagog (since Deceber 2021 according to her LinkedIn profile), she has continued with this activity.

Specifically, the post I view as most problematic in this regard is her post from October 26, 2022, when Ms Frankovská talks about the regional elections in Slovakia – while I would say encouraging people to vote in general is fine, making recommendations as to which specific politicians to vote (regardless of reasoning which might be justified) is, I think, in breach of the non-partisanship the CoE of Demagog demands.

While I cannot say that her political views have influenced the work of the entire project or fact-checking itself, I believe such activity in social media can lead the public to think of the project as biased towards certain parties (again, regardless of the possibility that certain parties and individuals routinely use lies or disinformartion and are therefore more prone to be negatively fact-checked), especially when it is done by the head of the project.

I recommend that Demagog.sk lays out a specific process within the CoE of how it ensures that political views of their team members do not influence their work, and with respect to social media activity, I believe that at the very least, a post such as the one described has to start with a clear disclaimer that the opions presented are strictly personal and in no way have effect on the work of Demagog (and social media acitivity of team members therefore has to be reflected on within the Code of Ethics).

Ideally, the updated CoE should state what kind of social media activity is permissible and not in conflict with the stated principle of non-partisanship.

Demagog's Code of Ethics clearly states that:

• Demagog SK project collaborators and volunteers do not openly and systematically show affection or disagreement with politicians, political parties and movements;
• all meetings between Demagog.SK collaborators and politicians to discuss the project's findings are made public;
• to maintain the neutrality and impartiality of the project, collaborators and volunteers are not direct supporters of politically active individuals, movements or parties and avoid any behaviour that may be perceived as support for a political party or movement;
• we encourage people to participate actively in public life in ways that are consistent with our non-partisanship;

The CoE does not state how non-partisanship is ensured but its contents should disqualify any individuals who show partisanship from being a part of the project team.

I have inspected Facebook profiles of the main project team members (Veronika Frankovská, Pavol Lacko) and have to note that there are some, in my view, problematic posts.

While Mr Lacko does not seem to comment on politics on social media, Ms Frankovská has, on several occassions, shared posts or voiced support for specific politicians or parties. Even when focusing on the period when she has started to be the Project Manager (aka director) for Demagog (since Deceber 2021 according to her LinkedIn profile), she has continued with this activity.

Specifically, the post I view as most problematic in this regard is her post from October 26, 2022, when Ms Frankovská talks about the regional elections in Slovakia – while I would say encouraging people to vote in general is fine, making recommendations as to which specific politicians to vote (regardless of reasoning which might be justified) is, I think, in breach of the non-partisanship the CoE of Demagog demands.

While I cannot say that her political views have influenced the work of the entire project or fact-checking itself, I believe such activity in social media can lead the public to think of the project as biased towards certain parties (again, regardless of the possibility that certain parties and individuals routinely use lies or disinformartion and are therefore more prone to be negatively fact-checked), especially when it is done by the head of the project.

I recommend that Demagog.sk lays out a specific process within the CoE of how it ensures that political views of their team members do not influence their work, and with respect to social media activity, I believe that at the very least, a post such as the one described has to start with a clear disclaimer that the opions presented are strictly personal and in no way have effect on the work of Demagog (and social media acitivity of team members therefore has to be reflected on within the Code of Ethics).

Ideally, the updated CoE should state what kind of social media activity is permissible and not in conflict with the stated principle of non-partisanship.

RE-ASSESSMENT UPDATE:

Demagog.sk has adjusted its Code of Ethics (see attachment), adding two new clause, specifically stating that:

• conduct that could raise doubts about the impartiality and professionalism of the project includes, but is not limited to, election recommendations and expressions of affection for politicians or political parties on social media,
• if there is a case that a project collaborator has not acted in accordance with this code of ethics, he/she will be warned and the portal will terminate his/her collaboration with him/her in the event of a repeated violation;

In my opinion, the added clauses are currently sufficient and compliant. However, in the case of ther Applicant being accepted as a signatory, the second/following iteration of the assessment will closely focus on this issue and potential breaches of the CoE.

The sourcing of the fact-checking is of a high quality, always providing multiple links to documents, statements, statistics, legislature, court rulings etc., accompanied by contextualization of identified sources with respect to the fact-checked claim and the overall topic it refers to itself. In some cases, more research for primary sources instead of utilizing secondary media articles would be welcome, however, the utilization of media sources does not seem to influence the tone or rationale behind the fact-check and can also point readers to multiple sources in case they want to do their own research and replicate the fact-check.

No instance of sources' safety being compromised were identified within the inspected fact-check sample.

Within the inspected fact-checks, the Applicant is using official primary sources whenever possible (government documents, international bodies websites//press releases, social media statements etc.). Due to the fact that numerous claims made by politicians refer to other statements or events covered by other media outlets in the country, the project often also uses secondary sources, however, there is usually a long and detailed explanation of the assessment that goes above simply linking to an article published by a different media house. The secondary sources therefore serve as a way of providing more context to a fact-check if desired by the reader.

One thing I would recommend to improve – the hyperlinks within specific fact-checks only show up after "expanding" (clicking on "read more") the assessment, which was a little confusing at first although I quickly understood how the website works.

As stated above, the sourcing is done very well and usually contains a long, detailed explanation of why a specific assessment was made. Multiple sources are used with respect to almost every fact-check and there is a proper, but not overwhelming amount of context for the reader to understand the overall topic that the claim refers to.

No instance of using a source that could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided was identified. However, the overall quality of sourcing implies that such an instance would be duly reported within the fact-check.

Demagog.SK is a project operating under the NGO Slovak Governance Institute (Inštitút pre dobre spravovanú spoločnosť). More information can be found on the website: www.governance.sk/gov_project/demagog-sk/. 

Funding of Demagog.SK is explained both in the annual reports of SGI (https://www.governance.sk/vyrocne-spravy/) and on the website Demagog.sk: https://demagog.sk/donori 

The project funding is actually better described on the website than in the annual reports as the website provides more details.

The website lists all major donations, however, a lack of a transparent account makes this impossible to verify. However, as an existence of such a bank account is not an obligation, I consider the description of the funding to be compliant with this criterion.

https://demagog.sk/o-nas  

The project is a part of a larger non-profit organization, which is properly specified on the project's website.

https://demagog.sk/kontakty                            

The listed web page describe the project`s team while the web page dedicated to methodology (https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme) specifies how editorial control is excercised, specifically:

“Who is evaluating?

The selection of factual statements from the discussions is usually done by one of the experts, then checked by another expert or methodologist. The initial processing of the verification of the factual statements, the tracing of the necessary relevant sources and the drafting of the verification text is done by the trainee, then checked and completed by the expert/expert. The truth value is then assigned to the statement based on the sources found and after discussion between the expert and the methodologist, in the case of more complex statements other experts are also involved in the discussion. The verification of the statement is thus checked by at least 3 people. More complex statements, as well as statements that are commented on by the public or politicians, are checked and approved by the whole expert team.”

The Applicant clearly states how every fact-check goes through multitple levels of assessment by multiple team members, ensuring some level of editorial control.

However, I would recommend that editorial responsibility is attributed to a specific team member and clearly stated as such. Although not disqualifying in my opinion, currently it is not entirely clear who has the ultimate editoral decision-making power and responsibility (although I would assume it is the Chief Analyst Veronika Frankovská, this could be listed on the website per se).

https://demagog.sk/kontakty 

https://demagog.sk/kontakty 

The section of contacts now includes more information about all team members, their pictures, and links to their LinkedIn profiles or biographies, if applicable.

Out of 8 team members, only 2 biographies are provided. I would also appreciate photos or social (LinkedIn) links in the absence of a bio. I believe this should be amended to be fully compliant.

Out of 8 team members, only 2 biographies are provided. I would also appreciate photos or social (LinkedIn) links in the absence of a bio. I believe this should be amended to be fully compliant.

RE-ASSESSMENT UPDATE:

The information on core team members of the Applicant were updated as requested.

https://demagog.sk/kontakty 

Users are encouraged to contact the project team members and 4 different contact options are listed.

https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme/ 

The applicant publishes its methodology which is of a fairly good quality but could be somewhat expanded (I already delved into this issue with respect to criterion 2.2).

The Applicant uses two primary sources of claims – TV debates and social media.

TV debates are logically used for their wide reach within the Slovak population, while social media claims are selected, as the Applicant states, both for its reach as well as its potential to influence the public in a potentially negative and harmful way (such as spreading disinformation related to the Covid-19 pandemic or the war in Ukraine). Explanations of selection of specific claims are not given. However, the Applicant describes the general logic for selection of social media claims with respect to criterion 2.1 – in my opinion, such descripition could easily be replicated on the website itself and could help furter inform readers on how claims are selected for fact-checking.

The assessment of fact-checks, as stated before, strives to provide an ample amount of context with respect to the claims themselves but also the overall topic (war, energy prices, constitution and legislation etc.) that the claim refers to. The assessments then provide clear reasoning, especially e.g. with respect to fact-checks labelled as "misleading", as to why the assessment was made and what evidence both supports a part of the claim made and refutes it or proves that the claims spins the topic a certain way the politican intended to.

The inspected assessments show a fair approach to working with sources and equal treatment regardless of the author of a fact-checked claim.

The project's website states that politicians are always contacted before publishing a fact-check via e-mail, specifically:

“Once the factual statements have been selected, each fact-checked politician will receive a list of factual statements by email (to a publicly available email address), with a reminder of the ongoing verification and the opportunity to supply the sources from which the facts were obtained, if necessary. Like the public, politicians can comment on completed verifications of statements.”

Several instances of a politician providing additional sourcing have been identified, the context of which is described at the bottom of the asessment.

The practice of always contacting the author before publishing is, in my opinion, a sort of best-practice in this respect. If anything, I would appreciate a simple unified tag or graphical distinction of an author providing additional evidence as this would allow readers to easily notice this or even filter out claims where this has happened.

We currently do not have an active option for readers to submit claims to check. We have put out an ad hoc call to send us material to factcheck about the war in Ukraine, but currently we do not have the capacity to systematically review readers’ suggestions for factcheck. Our main focus are the TV and broadcast debates. 

We have added description on the possibility of sending us suggestions to fact-check to the section www.demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme:

"Chcete nám nahlásiť výrok na overenie? Pošlite nám ho do správy na Facebooku, Instagrame alebo na demagog@institutsgi.sk. Výrok overíme v prípade, že bude spoločensky relevantný, spĺnať kritériá našej metodológie na faktické výroky a budeme mať na to kapacitu."

"Do you want to report a claim for us to fact-check? Send it to us via Facebook message, Instagram or to demagog@institutsgi.sk. We will fact-check the claim if it is relevant, it fulfills the criteria of our methodology and we have sufficient capacity to do so."

The project currently does not encourage its readers to send in claims to fact-checks as its personal capacities are, as stated by the Applicant, limited, which is something that the Assessor is unable to verify/consider as he does not have internal knowledge of the project`s team and its capacities.

However, I believe that the project could simply state that the public can send in claims to fact-check but does not guarantee that the received claims will be fact-checked unless they have significant importance (e.g. wide reach on social media with potential to influence public opinion). Doing this could also help Demagog to gain an idea of how many claims are being sent in and what would be the real added workload – potentially, the project team would realize that an encouragement can be featured on the website but the readers do not overwhelm the fact-checking capacities.

The project currently does not encourage its readers to send in claims to fact-checks as its personal capacities are, as stated by the Applicant, limited, which is something that the Assessor is unable to verify/consider as he does not have internal knowledge of the project`s team and its capacities.

However, I believe that the project could simply state that the public can send in claims to fact-check but does not guarantee that the received claims will be fact-checked unless they have significant importance (e.g. wide reach on social media with potential to influence public opinion). Doing this could also help Demagog to gain an idea of how many claims are being sent in and what would be the real added workload – potentially, the project team would realize that an encouragement can be featured on the website but the readers do not overwhelm the fact-checking capacities.

RE-ASSESSMENT UPDATE:

The Applicant updated its website as requested, inviting the audience to send in claims to fact-check.

https://demagog.sk/nahlasit-chybu 

This link is a part of every factcheck at the end of the analysis, for example: https://demagog.sk/vyrok/48483                            

https://demagog.sk/nahlasit-chybu 

This link is a part of every factcheck at the end of the analysis, for example: https://demagog.sk/vyrok/48483              

We have added more information about the corrections policy, including example of how a corrected statement should look like.               

The project has a dedicated webpage where the audience is encouraged to report any identified mistakes (https://demagog.sk/nahlasit-chybu).

However, the page does not describe or provide more details on the corrections policy – I believe this should be amended and the correction process should be better described (inspiration could be found e.g. with respect to the Demagog project in the Czech Republic).

The project has a dedicated webpage where the audience is encouraged to report any identified mistakes (https://demagog.sk/nahlasit-chybu).

However, the page does not describe or provide more details on the corrections policy – I believe this should be amended and the correction process should be better described (inspiration could be found e.g. with respect to the Demagog project in the Czech Republic).

RE-ASSESSMENT UPDATE:

The corrections policy was slightly expanded and now states how a correction will look like and specifies how the correction process looks like. Sufficient enough to be compliant with this criterion, however, I have one final remark: if a source for correction made is a politician who made the claim and who provides supplementary documents or evidence, such evidence should be, in my opinion, provided in the correction statement as well (i.e. the audience should be able to review the evidence provided for correction to be made as well as with other source materials for the fact-check).

We have unified the way that corrections of statements are graphically highlighted. Now all the examples both from the website and from this form follow the same format.

As described with respect to 6.1, the project does not describe a clear corrections policy/process, only refers to the methodology of assessment of claims (https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme). I recommend that the Corrections Policy is duly described (in several steps) and made corrections are graphically highlighted.

I inspected the three examples of corrections Deagog.sk lists on its website – however, these corrections are slightly different in terms of how they are highlighted with respect to the fact-check itself. However, Demagog clearly shows and mentions if a correction was made.

As described with respect to 6.1, the project does not describe a clear corrections policy/process, only refers to the methodology of assessment of claims (https://demagog.sk/ako-pracujeme). I recommend that the Corrections Policy is duly described (in several steps) and made corrections are graphically highlighted.

I inspected the three examples of corrections Deagog.sk lists on its website – however, these corrections are slightly different in terms of how they are highlighted with respect to the fact-check itself. However, Demagog clearly shows and mentions if a correction was made.

During the last year, we have been contacted by politicians or readers to review our factchecks. Upon receiving the feedback, at least two analysts from the team look at the evidence provided by the reader or politician and review it according to our methodology. If the evidence is sufficient to change the evaluation of the claim, we change it on our website and mark it accordingly.

Examples of the correction:

https://demagog.sk/vyrok/48454

https://demagog.sk/vyrok/47950

https://demagog.sk/vyrok/44540

https://demagog.sk/vyrok/48588

As Demagog.SK contacts the politicians before publishing the factchecks, it often happens that the politicians provide the data needed to change the category of the statement before the publication and there is no need for later correction.

The listed fact-checks show corrections made and also provide an explanation of why a correction was made. In certain cases, the team states that the claim author provided additional evidence, however, such evidence is not hyperlinked which would be welcome (although there might be instances where such evidence could also display some personal information and should be anonymized correspondingly).

We are not an existing signatory.

The project is not an existing signatory (https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/signatories).

We are not a fact-checking unit of a media company. 

As stated by the Applicant and verified by the Assessor, the project is not a unit of a media company.