A section called ‘About The Journal FactCheck’ is available on the footer of the homepage of the main The Journal site, where The Journal FactCheck lives; you can also click directly here: https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/

In this we outline our legal status as a unit within a registered media company, providing details of our Companies Registration number, of our founders and of how we are funded, including any grants and revenue from third parties (unlike our wider news website, we do not place commercial advertising around our fact-checking content).

I find the Journal FactCheck (herein JFC) site clear. I mark them as compliant after a review of these sections of the website, which in part reads: 

'The Journal and The Journal FactCheck are part of Journal Media Ltd, which is a registered company in Ireland, number 483623 at the CRO (Companies Registration Office). The Journal was founded in 2010 by online entrepreneurs Eamonn and Brian Fallon, who first came to public prominence by creating the online property listings portal Daft.ie in 1997.

The work of The Journal and The Journal FactCheck is in no way influenced by advertisers, shareholders or any other external party which may contribute funds now or in the future.'

1. The Journal FactCheck unit is located within the newsroom of The Journal, one of Ireland’s most-read online news sources (Reuters DNR 2022). It was established in early 2016 to sift truth from claims in the Irish political arena in the run-up to General Election of that year. Due to the high engagement levels with fact-checks during that election, Journal Media committed to retain the service and has since expanded its operations to factcheck misinformation and disinformation across all spheres that inform and influence Irish citizens’ decision-making. 

Since we have the advantage of an online native newsroom, with various avenues for the public to engage with journalists (eg, live webinars with Q&A, newsletters on topics from climate change to health, interactive website features such as polls and open threads, direct email contact with reporters on each article, strong social media presence), we have made FactCheck an integral part of our workflow in aligning our weekly fact-checking focus with the conversations that are directing public opinion. Our fulltime fact-checker sits in the morning news meeting each weekday to liaise with reporters and editors on the stories and topics that are most exercising our audiences. They then use these insights along with our traditional misinformation surfacing tools to figure out what to prioritise on the fact-check list.

2. There are a total of 17 journalists and editors across Journal Media who have produced fact-check work or services for the FactCheck unit in the past year and these are listed and detailed, with biographies, here for our readers: http://www.thejournal.ie/meet-the-team-thejournal-ie-factcheck-bios-4267874-Oct2018/

We have been delighted this year to have been able to fund a dedicated full-time fact-checker to FactCheck, as part of our commitment to the Ireland EDMO hub's work. This has allowed us to produce a wider range of fact-checks, work on tools for surfacing misinformation with the University of Sheffield (another EDMO partner) and Newswhip social media monitoring service, and attend collaborative conferences with other fact-checkers across the European region in which we operate. This has been invaluable in informing and improving how we carry out all elements of our work.

It should be noted that we also include a fact-checking workshop in inductions for all new team members on The Journal so that, even if they are not directly involved in the work, they understand and can replicate the standards and processes in how they do any of their work on our wider news site.

3. We had noted in our 2021 report to the IFCN that our FactCheck unit had increased its fact-checking capabilities to match the surge in Covid-related misinformation in Ireland. Fact-checking is still the core activity of our team, although the breadth of topics has widened again to encompass the topical (war in Ukraine, still some Covid misinformation, and debunks of climate change disinformation). By gaining a new full-time fact-checker role, we have been able to refocus on other issues particular to the market we serve, ie, Ireland. This is important as we remain the only fact-checking organisation in the Republic of Ireland, and as such, have to respond to national issues as well as trends we see on a wider European basis and beyond. 

While we continue our 3PFC partnership with Facebook, and maintain our connection to Twitter, we have - understandably towards the end of this year - been strengthening our presence on Instagram with True/False quizzes and using Stories to disseminate shorter versions of length on-site FactChecks. The team is currently testing formats for TikTok and plan to launch a strategy for video debunks on that platform in Q1 of 2023.

Our FactCheck unit work received a strong focus in a month-long commitment in The Journal's The Good Information Project in April 2022 to helping the public understand misinformation - where it comes from, how it spreads, how to recognise it, how to have those conversations - through a series of articles, a live and livestreamed panel in a major Irish university, an online lunchtime webinar, and a series of Instagram Stories and quizzes. We linked this through to journalism from the main newsteam to explore how the EU in particular can impact misinformation and what needs to change for that to happen. We also devoted an episode of The Good Information Podcast to the issue. All of this is part of an ongoing shift to centering our work at FactCheck into growing media literacy efforts in Ireland, and reaching out to younger audiences in particular who may not find our fact-checks at source. Our Managing Editor was the launch interviewee on a new youth media literacy podcast this autumn, and the team is formulating a workshop to be made available to older teenagers in an educational setting. We also launched a new monthly FactCheck newsletter to explain and identify misinformation trends to an Irish audience - the sign-up box for this newsletter is included in every article published in the FactCheck vertical and promoted on social media.

4. As well as increasing the distribution of fact-check work to audiences less likely served by our traditional technical articles (see the TikTok project!), we want to pursue and strengthen what has been The Journal FactCheck's involvement at a higher level of collaboration with fact-checkers and stakeholders in combating misinformation this year. 

As part of this, we are now the fact-checking partner in the new Ireland EDMO hub (as previously mentioned), and contributing to the EFCSN project with scores of other fact-checking outlets across Europe. Even small - but consistent - efforts such as contributing to the monthly EDMO fact-checkers' report about disinfo trends echoing across the region are steps towards a more powerful co-operation and shared learnings to strengthen the impact of our own, and the wider, fact-checking effort. We are hopeful that we will be part of a collaboration which will see a number of organisations across Europe working together to produce educational materials and efforts to reach young audiences disaffected by mainstream media; this will be a great outcome in 2023 if achieved, and a solid outcome to hopefully report in our 2023 reverification application.

The first three questions are clearly addressed online and any member of the public interested to know their history and current operation would find the answers. The goals, which are stated in the application, demonstrate a commitment to further expand, which they have done consistently and incrementally since its founding in 2016. As such, I mark JFC fully compliant in Criteria 1.2.

The Journal FactCheck has published 78 pieces in the previous 12 months (mid-November 2021 - mid-November 2022) - 63 straight fact-checks/debunks; 9 large FactFinds (where we weigh and collate all available data and evidence around a contentious topical concern so that readers can make informed decisions for themselves); 6 essays prebunking or explaining the route of major pieces of disinformation, or topics being impacted by disinformation.

In the past six months, we published 40 of these articles.

All of our archive is available here: https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck/news/

Due to the volume and consistency of its fact checks over the last six months, I mark JFC compliant in Criteria 1.3. 

To assess Criteria 1.4 I reviewed several fact checks selected randomly from JFC's website. 

As an example, the Jan. 7, 2023 fact check headlined "Debunked: Claims that an NFL player collapsed due to a Covid-19 vaccine are completely unfounded." 

In debunking why the Buffalo Bills (NFL) player collapsed, the JFC rightly notes that his vaccination status at the time and amid widespread speculation was unknown. Furthermore, the fact check explained after citing other medically-based evaluations in mainstream news that ,"Doctors in the US have speculated on the reasons why a healthy American footballer could have collapsed during a game, and agree there are many reasons why this may have occurred." 

---

As a different example, the Jan. 5, 2023 fact check headlined "Debunked: No, refugees are not still being housed at a school in Drimnagh" 

The rumor led to protests outside the school building after the school had reopened to its student population. JFC was able to connect with local officials and refugee experts to explain the school had been used as a temporary shelter. School was able to open on time and per the calendar after the refugees were relocated. Social media posts had been false. 

---

A third fact check was evaluated to judge compliance in this criteria. It was an October 2022 piece headlined "FactFind: How much does it cost the State to train a doctor in Ireland?" Noting the relationship to larger issues in the nation, JFC noted, "The premise of many of these arguments seems to be that the State provides training to doctors at great expense, only for some of them to move abroad where they no longer contribute to Ireland’s health service."

JFC in its explanation noted contradictory statements related to this issue. As a way to clear up misinformation circulating online, JFC connected with the following sources to answer the question: Ireland's Health Service Executive (government role); tuition costs at schools including Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and University of Limerick that show variations meaning its not a set cost; Department of Further and Higher Education, Research,  Innovation and Science figures on state funding of medical degrees. And here's the answer to its question: "Based on these estimates, it costs the state around €140,000 to €168,000 per medical student over the course of an undergraduate degree, which lasts five to six years if they are a direct entry student. If the student is already a graduate, which about a third of students are, the cost is €72,500-€87,000 per medical student over the course of their training."

---

Given the evaluation of these fact checks, I mark Criteria 1.4 compliant. Other fact checks reviewed will be included in separate Methodology and Sourcing sections below. 

We currently have none. A new addition to our funding declaration in our About The Journal FactCheck page (https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/) on our homepage is the inclusion of funding from the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) to collaborate with academic and technology and media literacy experts as a partner in the new Ireland EDMO hub. EDMO is an independent observatory which received funding from a European Union grant scheme but which is overseen by an advisory board and an executive board.

The funding declaration to the public reads as follows:

"Our work is funded via The Journal newsroom budget, largely from advertising revenue on the site but also increasingly from contributions to the readers' fund by citizens like you who wish to see our factchecking and other quality journalistic work remain accessible to all.

We received funding as a partner in the Ireland hub of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), a collaboration between academic researchers and fact-checkers which promotes scientific knowledge of online disinformation, advances the development of EU fact-checking services and supports media literacy programmes, to contribute fact-checking expertise to this effort. EDMO receives funding from a European Union programme but is an independent observatory with its own governing board and an independent advisory board. You can read more about EDMO here [https://edmo.eu/edmo-at-a-glance/], and the Ireland EDMO hub here [https://edmohub.ie/index.php/about/].

We are also a member of the Facebook Third-Party Fact Checking programme, under which we receive some payment for submitting certain factcheck articles to be applied to misinformation on its platform.

The Journal and The Journal FactCheck are part of Journal Media Ltd, which is a registered company in Ireland, number 483623 at the CRO (Companies Registration Office). The Journal was founded in 2010 by online entrepreneurs Eamonn and Brian Fallon, who first came to public prominence by creating the online property listings portal Daft.ie in 1997.

The work of The Journal and The Journal FactCheck is in no way influenced by advertisers, shareholders or any other external party which may contribute funds now or in the future."

It's How We are Funded page is clear and confirms what JFC has written in its application. I have included a screen shot to show how it looks online. I mark the applicant compliant in Criteria 1.5. 

n/a

This is not applicable and is, therefore, marked as compliant. 

1.

https://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-of-ireland-will-be-underwater-due-to-climate-change-5917219-Nov2022/

It is unusual to have to focus a fact-check on a trustworthy source, as the producers of these maps are, but we realised it was important to stem a trend of how they were being misinterpreted or used out of context. The maps have regularly been described as showing areas of Ireland that will be “underwater” by a certain date, often by well-meaning posters wishing to highlight the real danger of climate change. Such maps have featured multiple times in the British press, and heavily referenced in Irish social media circles.

Since The Journal’s main newsroom has a strong focus on climate crisis reporting - we have reporters dedicated to climate reporting, we publish a climate crisis newsletter and generally dedicate a significant proportion of our newsroom resources to the topic - it might have been a surprise to regular readers that we would have chosen to fact check something that, on the face of it, has been used to draw attention to the climate crisis. However, our mission is to make sure that all information on climate change is accurate and only support the argument for action through verified facts.

2.

https://www.thejournal.ie/where-thousands-of-iranian-protests-sentenced-to-death-5920580-Nov2022/

We had a thoughtful discussion among our team on the decision to work on this fact-check, given the conduct of Iranian authorities against protestors there this year. However, the virality of this claim and amplification by celebrities and respected political figures outside of Iran made it influential in Irish social media circles, and while we felt it important to show the 15,000 death sentences claim was not at all accurate, we were conscious to provide lots of context and supplementary information in this fact-check to help readers understand how the figure had gained traction.

3.

https://www.thejournal.ie/how-much-rent-will-the-tax-credit-announced-in-budget-2023-pay-for-5878011-Sep2022/

The housing crisis in Ireland is acute and there is a recognised need for the State to do a much better job at providing solutions in all aspects of property provision, especially in the rental sector. We have fact-checked the government several times on claims they have made about their action (or inaction) in housing, but this fact check showed the importance of making sure that all reports of the state of the crisis are accurate. The claim was made by an important and reputable housing charity, and did turn out to be misleading, so shows that we are diligent in monitoring all sources, not just the ones who experience has shown us are more likely to ‘spin’ a particular topic.

4.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-16-vacant-homes-per-homeless-person-ireland-5801978-Jul2022/

On the flip side of the housing issue, we showed through the details of this fact-check that we were willing to work with a politician to clarify what he meant by his headline-grabbing claim, and in this case it led to a ‘Mostly True’ verdict. This is important as it shows we try to avoid approaching all seemingly suspicious claims by politicians with cynicism, and instead apply the same rigour, analysis of source data and right of reply as we would to any other fact check. And, as in this case, sometimes the suspicion is misplaced.

5.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-queen-elizabeth-death-5862322-Sep2022/

The death of Queen Elizabeth II of England had particular resonance in Ireland due to the country’s history of colonisation and civil rights struggles under UK rule, going back several centuries. As a result, there was a stark contrast between Ireland and England in the reaction to her death, and several popular - but false - memes of ‘celebrations’ or otherwise in Ireland quickly emerged. We might have attracted some criticism from social media users as ‘spoilsports’ but we amended the record on these nonetheless.

6.

https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-cows-problem-emissions-5842492-Aug2022/

While the importance of the agricultural sector to Ireland’s economy would not be as valuable as in the recent past, it is still significant. This verdict of this fact-check would not be a popular finding among the strong agricultural lobby, rural dwellers or a large swathe of politicians who represent regional areas, but clearly shows where it finds its data and provides readers with an opportunity to explore those sources for themselves.

7.

https://www.thejournal.ie/monkeypox-man-parachute-climate-change-debunked-the-journal-5836691-Aug2022/

This piece of disinformation was so obviously fake to us - on the inside - that it almost felt unnecessary to fact-check. But the number of international fact-checking and news outlets who then referenced us or asked our management to confirm that this was not our story underlined that we made the correct decision to draw attention to this disinformation attempt using our identity/ branding, and apply our own process to ourselves, even seeking an official quote from our own management executives.

8. 

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-crown-pint-glass-banned-eu-rules-5777946-May2022/

As The Journal FactCheck sits within the larger news publication - one of the two most-read online sources in Ireland - it can be difficult to be seen to challenge our media colleagues (or those in the nearby UK).This shows our willingness to do so when necessary, as did a fact-check later in the year on claims a teacher in Ireland was jailed for refusing to recognise particular gender pronouns (this was not true, and the media outlet in question changed their headline, and an associated tweet which a major broadcasting figure had sent viral containing the false information).

9.

https://www.thejournal.ie/photos-of-ukranian-girl-and-russian-debunked-5704471-Mar2022/

There is a great deal of sympathy among the Irish public towards Ukrainians; the number of refugees accepted here has been proportionately high per head of population. So this meme would have been welcomed and accepted as an expression of that sympathy and a fact check to show it isn’t accurate may not necessarily have been expected, but by showing our verification tools for such multimedia content, we hope it proves us trustworthy.

10.

https://www.thejournal.ie/is-conor-mcgregors-vaccine-claim-true-5609068-Dec2021/

The MMA star has a huge following in his native Ireland, as well as global fame, and challenging any of his public declarations would be unpopular with those fans. We decided, however, that the weight this admiration gave his claim meant it was important that we assess its veracity, and with the same process we would apply to a less well known source.

Based on my review of the submitted links and others selected at random, I can confirm that it does not weight its fact checks towards one side/issue or another. Its fact checks clearly demonstrate information conducted and pursued with a public interest mission. As such, I mark Criteria 2.1 compliant. 

Our factchecking decision-making and production process are public-facing in this piece [ https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-thejournal-ie-readers-guide-2987611-Sep2016/ ] on our site, and we abide by the IFCN’s Code of Principles and are fully-compliant members of the Press Council of Ireland. The Irish public can make a complaint to this body about the work of our factcheckers or our newsroom. To date, we are one of the few national members of the Council to have never had a complaint upheld against us.

In 2022, we also joined the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) fact-checkers' alliance, and became a member of the newly-formed EFCSN European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN), working with our colleagues there to draw up and vote through a European Code of Standards for independent fact-checking organisations working in the region. We provide links to these projects in the readers' guide, linked above.

Its procedures and transparency in this area are clear. I have included information from its page with the subhead "How do we find and choose fact checks?" to illustrate this. As such, I mark Criteria 2.2 compliant. 

Given the importance of climate change reporting and misinformation, JFC did a fact check that I believes demonstrates its nonpartisanship. 

On November 11, 2022, JFC did a fact check headlined "Debunk: No, these maps don't show large areas of Irish cities that 'could be underwater’ by 2050." I mention it under nonpartisanship because it fact checks a US nonprofit climate organization. To explain, JFC's fact check noted, "A series of interactive web maps released by Climate Central, a US-based non-profit organisation that researches and analyses climate science, have often been misinterpreted or presented out of context." News headlines from English and Irish press, JFC explained, used the maps to show doomsday scenarios. As such, the fact check explained that "The data depicted in these maps — while concerning — does not show what the headlines suggest. Instead, as was correctly described in the body of one of the articles, they show areas that are in elevations below a predicted annual flood level for 2050."

As such, I mark Criteria 2.3 compliant. 

This criteria looks at the Nov. 16, 2022 fact check headlined "FactCheck: Iranian protesters have been arrested & killed, but 15,000 aren't sentenced to death." The subhead is: "Justin Trudeau helped spread the claim, but later deleted his tweet."

It continues, "Justin Trudeau also had tweeted: 'Canada denounces the Iranian regime’s barbaric decision to impose the death penalty on nearly 15,000 protestors' although this tweet was deleted after about 11 hours. Although these claims are inaccurate, they do echo real events in Iran, including the deaths and mass arrests of protesters."

Given the fact checking of a liberal politician's use of an inflated statistic, I mark Criteria 2.4 compliant. 

This policy is available in the About The Journal FactCheck section on our home page, here: https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/

Its nonpartisanship policy is clear. I have attached the page from its online site, which clearly states, in part, "The Journal was founded in late 2010 with a stated mission to provide unbiased, independent, contextualised news that informs users without agenda. Our motto, 'read, share and shape the news', has long been a public declaration that we are answerable to users of our service. 

Our hiring policy excludes members of political parties or lobbying groups from working in our newsroom or FactCheck unit. We understand that journalists may have personal opinions on a wide range of topics but we ask them to not get involved in advocacy or state policy positions on issues which we might factcheck in such a way as might lead a reasonable member of the public to see the work of The Journal FactCheck as biased."

Given this statement and its accessibility online, I mark Criteria 2.5 compliant. 

Using the Jan. 5, 2023 fact check mentioned above and headlined "Debunked: No, refugees are not still being housed at a school in Drimnagh" I have reviewed the sources used and find Criteria 3.1 compliant. In investigating false claims, JFC used the following sources: A local councillor; a school spokesperson; a spokesperson for the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth; a group of TDs (like MPs) and councillors who issued a join statement; and statements made to Irish public broadcaster RTE. 

For this criteria, I evaluated the November 6, 2022 fact check headlined "Debunked: Five common climate myths and why they're wrong." It explains five myths that are associated with a lack of action on climate change. The five are: "That the earth is not warming; That it is warming but the impacts will be negligible; That it is warming but humans aren’t responsible; That there is nothing humans can do to stop the climate crisis; That Ireland’s emissions are too little to warrant taking climate action."

Under a "Getting the facts" subhead, JFC explains: "The leading source of global climate information is a series of reports published by a United Nations body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its reports are written and checked by hundreds of scientists who compile and analyse the latest climate research from around the world." Additional sources include: National Academy of Sciences (USA); Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency; and a climate scientist (also a book author).

By stating the research from this variety of sources in both governmental, nonprofit and private contexts, the fact check states why each of the aforementioned five are wrong and demonstrates compliance with Criteria 3.2. 

For this criteria, I reviewed the September 28, 2022 fact check headlined "FactCheck: Is the renters' €500 tax credit just worth seven days' rent in Dublin?" The subhead: "The claim was made by a housing charity after the budget was announced."

After identifying why it is the subject of a fact check, the piece explained what a tax credit is then moves on to Dublin's average rent cost. In investigating claims, it turns out that a figure used was only about "new" rents, not "all" rents so there is a context issue. Sources in that vein included an Irish government agency called Residential Tenancies Board. (They also demonstrated fairness and nonpartisanship is going back to the housing advocate for clarity on how it was using the numbers.) Using these Board's figures and current rent figures, the issue was judged as Misleading. 

For this criteria, I evaluated the November 6, 2022 fact check headlined "Debunked: Five common climate myths and why they're wrong." It explains five myths that are associated with a lack of action on climate change. The five are: "That the earth is not warming; That it is warming but the impacts will be negligible; That it is warming but humans aren’t responsible; That there is nothing humans can do to stop the climate crisis; That Ireland’s emissions are too little to warrant taking climate action."

Under a "Getting the facts" subhead, JFC explains: "The leading source of global climate information is a series of reports published by a United Nations body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Its reports are written and checked by hundreds of scientists who compile and analyse the latest climate research from around the world." Additional sources include: National Academy of Sciences (USA); Ireland's Environmental Protection Agency; and a climate scientist (also a book author).

By stating the research from this variety of sources in both governmental, nonprofit and private contexts, the fact check states why each of the aforementioned five are wrong as it relies on reputable sources. As such, I mark Criteria 3.4 compliant.  

The Journal FactCheck is the fact-checking unit of The Journal online news publication.

The Journal and The Journal FactCheck are part of Journal Media Ltd, which is a registered company in Ireland, number 483623 at the CRO (Companies Registration Office).

This link takes you directly to documents proving our legal status: https://core.cro.ie/e-commerce/company/search/516464

I can confirm the documents are online on the Companies Registration Office website. Criteria 4.1 is marked compliant with a screen shot of the site included for review, which also matches the earlier incorporation date of 2016. 

We have a section entitled ‘How we are funded’ in this page in our homepage footer: https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/

This outlines the legal status of the company, our reg number (and links to the CRO site if readers wish to see our records there). It also explains who our founders and funders are and how we are funded through advertising revenue to our related news website (although advertisements do not appear on fact-check articles themselves), with a small amount coming from our Facebook 3PFC partnership, funding from the European Digital Media Observatory for its Ireland hub and some contributions from readers themselves to our readers’ fund.

I can confirm that its organizational and editorial structure is clearly articulated. As such, I mark Criteria 4.2 as compliant. 

On this same static page on the footer of our website (https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/) we outline how the Managing Editor of Journal Media and the FactCheck lead divide up responsibilities for how FactCheck is run.

We then link to the full biographies and role descriptions of every person involved in FactCheck. (https://www.thejournal.ie/meet-the-team-thejournal-ie-factcheck-bios-4267874-Oct2018/)

Under "Who We Are" on its About page it says the following: "The Journal FactCheck was launched in 2016 by then-Journal editor Susan Daly, who is now Managing Editor of Journal Media and oversees strategic partnerships and standards at FactCheck. The editorial lead and operations on The Journal FactCheck specifically is Christine Bohan, who is also Deputy Editor of The Journal. When Christine is on leave, Stephen McDermott - Assistant News Editor with The Journal assumes this operational role.

Full biographies (notable for the next criteria) and roles of our FactCheck editors and reporters are available here." 

Online "here" is hyperlinked to the page I have uploaded. Bios are clear and contact information is readily apparent and accessible. 

I mark 4.3 compliant based on this review. 

This page is available on our site and also linked to in the About The Journal FactCheck page on the home page.

https://www.thejournal.ie/meet-the-team-thejournal-ie-factcheck-bios-4267874-Oct2018/ (Please note that while the URL of this link shows a 2018 date, that indicates its creation; it is updated every time we change roles or members within the team involved in any way in producing work for The Journal FactCheck.)

It details all of those involved in The Journal FactCheck and what roles they play/ duties they have.

We also link to this rundown at the end of each factcheck article, with this line: "You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here."

This piggy backs on the assessment in Criteria 4.3. I have included a screen shot of the bio page. I also note that where an author writes a fact check, their social and email are tagged with this photograph at the end of that piece. As such, Criteria 4.4 is compliant. 

We have all possible ways to contact us listed in our About The Journal FactCheck location on the home page footer (https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/), and in our appearances on national radio and TV to talk about our work and specific fact-check articles, we have a policy of asking listeners and viewers to contact our Twitter account, email (and, if appropriate, WhatsApp). These are also noted at the end of our rundown of who's who in the FactCheck team (https://www.thejournal.ie/meet-the-team-thejournal-ie-factcheck-bios-4267874-Oct2018/).

Our site is also very user-friendly for those who wish to contact an individual journalist, lodge a complaint or give us direct feedback.

Each author’s byline comes with their individual email which is linked to an email form; there is also a ‘Send a Correction’ button on each article which alerts the editorial team to feedback. I have attached an example of how this looks on site but you can go into any fact-check article on the site and see these features at the bottom of the piece.

I can confirm that its staff bios and contact information are readily available and accessible. As an example this is author information for one of the aforementioned fact checks reviewed. The author information is clear and contact information would be accessible to any member of the public willing or needing to use it. Based on this review, I mark Criteria 4.5 compliant. 

Our Readers’ Guide is here: https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-thejournal-ie-readers-guide-2987611-Sep2016/

This is linked to at the end of every fact-check article and in the About section on our homepage footer.

I mark Criteria 5.1 as compliant based on its methodology included online under its Reader's Guide. I will review methodology of individual fact checks in the next four criteria. 

Here, it explains in detail how it sources and checks information: 

"How we check claims for a FactCheck

If the claim was made by a specific person or entity, in almost all instances they will be asked to provide evidence. This is for two reasons: it holds them to account, and also gives them the right and opportunity to defend their claim and argue their case.

We then evaluate the evidence they give us, but also research the issue independently.

Insofar as is possible, we use the most official, authoritative sources available as evidence

And we always try to get to the root of a claim.

If we come across a statistic in a speech, press release, meme or video, we look for the raw data that led to that statistic.

Then, we evaluate the quality of that data or information, the quality of the methodology used to acquire it, and the reliability of the entity who gathered it in the first place. (i.e. did this come from a peer-reviewed study in a reputable journal, a state agency, a government department, the Central Statistics Office, an international organisation like the UN, OECD, WHO, or Eurostat?)

We don’t “take the word” of reputable organisations, but we do know that some data and information is more reliable than others.

We seek out contradictions. This means that, rather than searching for evidence that supports or refutes a claim, we deliberately try to find evidence that supports and refutes every side of a particular issue. We are deliberately awkward in our research.

We weigh evidence. If we find 20 pieces of peer-reviewed scientific research which refute a claim, and one that supports it, that claim is likely to get a rating of FALSE or Mostly FALSE.

If a claim involves a public statement, we look at official transcripts, but also (where available) at audio and video recordings, to ensure what someone actually said wasn’t misrepresented in a transcript or news report.

We very often speak to experts, to help us interpret and evaluate evidence, but also to give us their own expert assessment of a claim.

We use public sources, wherever possible. We want readers to be able to replicate the research we do, and come to their own conclusions, so we will use evidence that is already publicly available, or seek permission to make evidence public in our fact checks.

Very occasionally, we will use evidence that is not publicly available, but we will explain why.

We do not accept off-the-record statements as evidence."

For this criteria, I will assess the December 22, 2022 fact check headlined "FactCheck: The recent cold spell is not evidence against climate change." 

After listing online posts claiming climate change cannot be real because of a cold snap, the author wrote "let’s focus on the more important issue: if climate change is warming the atmosphere, why do we still experience drastic weather like the recent cold spell? And will we continue to into the future?" 

To answer these questions, JFC talked with and explained the work of a geography department professor about the difference between weather and climate. 

Furthermore, in addressing the issue, the Journal talked with a climatologist who explained cold periods can still happen even as the Earth heats up. That guy charts it, and he gave his maps to the Journal. 

Given the detailed explanation and reliance on top sources, I mark Criteria 5.2 compliant. 

This assessment evaluates a September 8, 2022 fact check headlined "Debunked: Teacher wasn't jailed over pronouns, but for breaking a court order by going to school." 

As all of the fact checks I have reviewed do, this one starts off with a description of the information that was misleading or went viral or was investigated. For this one "Various reports and posts on social media have suggested that the teacher, Enoch Burke, was jailed for refusing to use a student’s preferred pronouns. Multiple international outlets covered the story with headlines that don’t mention Burke’s alleged behaviour, his suspension, or the disciplinary procedure involved." Lots of US news outlets (including big ones like CBS) misreported the story. 

After detailing that, JFC noted, "However, none of those reports accurately reflect why Burke was jailed or even what the school’s disciplinary case against him is about. Burke’s refusal to use a student’s pronouns have nothing to do with his imprisonment by order of the High Court.The school he taught at sought an injunction after it claimed that Burke interrupted a church service held to mark the school’s 260th anniversary, which was attended by clergy, staff, past and present pupils, parents, and board members."

To investigate, JFC uses court and legal authorities' explanations and documents. It turned to others as experts to explain procedures. It finds that, "Burke was arrested for breaking the terms of his paid suspension — i.e. not to enter the the school — as well as the court order forbidding him from attending the school."

Final verdict in this case: 'It is therefore false to suggest that Burke has been jailed for refusing to use a student’s pronouns – rather, he has been imprisoned for refusing to comply with a court order to stay away from his place of work."

Given its explanation and narrative, I mark Criteria 5.3 compliant based on this review. 

For this piece, I assessed the September 29, 2022 fact check headlined "Debunked: No, excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not down to natural causes." 

The methodology for this one explains in details how CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and it included a color graphic explaining the process noting what is "natural" and what is due to humans. After a detailed narrative and explaining scientific research and impacts of humans on CO2, the piece is a clear method for debunking the original claim that it's somehow natural. 

The verdict for this one: The original claim "falsely implies that 97% the excess CO2 in the atmosphere was released by natural processes. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of additional CO2 released by human activity that is responsible for driving a change in weather patterns."

Given the clarity and detail and explanation, I mark Criteria 5.4 compliant. 

I evaluated the Jan. 17, 2023 fact check headlined "Debunked: Misleading graph used to argue that non-vaccinated people achieved ‘Zero Covid’."

A line graph is, apparently, being used to argue that "non-vaccinated people have lower rates of the virus." However, right away the JFC fact checker notes that the chart shows the opposite. That is, "unvaccinated people are disproportionately more likely to die from the disease." It goes on further, "By analysing the graph data, as well as an earlier Twitter thread by the graph maker that outlines part of his process, The Journal has determined that the charts have a glaring omission: deaths are not included, either as “events” or anywhere else." it also explores the medical issues at work related to vaccinated (including boosted) folks and those who are dying from Covid by looking at government figures. 

Based on this review, I mark Criteria 5.5 compliant. 

In the past year, we have launched a new FactCheck newsletter which is issued monthly and to which there is a subscription box carried in every fact-check article (see screenshot); subscribers are encouraged to reply directly with questions and feedback or tips; they are also reminded in each newsletter to follow our social media handles and Whatsapp messenger so that they can submit their tips and questionable content there. (We, of course, remind users on our social media platforms that our DMs are open for submissions).

At all points of correspondence, and on all fact-checks, we carry a link to our Readers' Guide, which we have this year revised to better reflect how we make editorial decisions around what we fact-check, and also to explain the wider breadth of article types we carry so that where a debunk is not appropriate, we might be able to write a fact-centric features explaining the context around a wider misinformation trend or topic. 

We also encouraged live Q&As and submissions during our webinar and live event on misinformation in our Good Information Project focus last April, as well as running an open thread and OSINT-testing quiz on The Journal website to encourage audience interaction.

After reading through more than a dozen of its fact checks, public interaction and engagement is an important feature. A Reader's Guide further helps people understand the scope of the work and what can and cannot be checked. 

Its page is detailed and includes email, social, and phone contact. Here it is: 

"How to suggest a fact check

Email factcheck@thejournal.ie, tweet @TJ_FactCheck (bearing in mind that a request in this format is public), send us a direct message on Twitter, or WhatsApp message us on 085 221 4696

Tell us who you are, roughly where you live, and whether it’s ok for us to include that information in the fact check

Be as specific as possible about the claim you want checked, the person or organisation who made it, and where you saw, read, or heard the claim being made. If you can, include links. Suggestions with this information are far more likely to end up as fact checks.

As much as we’d love to, we can’t research questions you are simply curious about. FactCheck is about examining the truth (or otherwise) of claims that have been made about specific issues

We can’t factcheck claims that involve someone’s beliefs or ideology, counterfactual claims or predictions.

We’re particularly grateful for any memes or viral content that you may see circulating on social media. The internet is a big place, and we can’t keep an eye on all of it, so if you see something that can be fact-checked or debunked, please get in touch."

I mark Criteria 5.6 compliant. 

We have a section on our About The Journal FactCheck page on the homepage footer (https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/) which states the following (and links to the corrections archive and more indepth explanation of how we perform corrections):

“How you can contact us with a correction:

Each factcheck article carries the name and direct link to the author’s email where you can get in touch. There is also a ‘send a correction’ button on every piece.

If we deem a clarification, correction or update is needed to a factcheck, we publish that on the original article and to our corrections page here.

As a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, we adhere to their standards of excellence. If you feel there has been a violation by The Journal FactCheck of the IFCN Code of Principles, you may report that here (links to IFCN reporting page).”

JFC has a clear corrections policy in addition to many open channels for the public to connect with its staff. Given this transparency and openness, I mark Criteria 6.1 compliant. 

I have read the corrections policy and confirm it meets the criteria. A review of that page is attached. 

I mark Criteria 6.2 compliant. 

There were two corrections necessary to our fact-checks in the past 12 months.

The details of what was changed and how we note it are contained in our Corrections page here [ https://www.thejournal.ie/thejournal-ie-factcheck-corrections-policy-2987705-Sep2016/ ] and also on each of the articles themselves.

Both corrections were amendments to a single sentence in each article but both were specific data points so we felt it important to record these prominently. They did not alter the overall verdict of either piece of work. 

The corrections:

23 May, 2022

FactCheck: Is 10% of Ireland’s healthcare budget spent on diabetes?

Correction: Several hours after publishing, this article was edited on 21 May to correct a sentence which gave an inaccurate figure for the percentage of the HSE budget which was spent on health service use by people with diabetes aged 50 and over, according to some research on the subject. The error was introduced during the editing process. The correct figure is far less than 1% of the overall budget.

19 November, 2021

FactCheck: Are vaccinated people are likely to transmit Covid-19 as non-vaccinated people?

Correction: After publishing, this article was edited on 19 November to correct a sentence which gave inaccurate statistics for the likelihood of someone getting infected from a household contact. The correct figures are 25% for the secondary attack rate in fully vaccinated household contacts and 23% in unvaccinated contacts, not 25% and 38%. 

I note that the corrections page confirms what the applicant has included in their explanation. I mark Criteria 6.3 compliant given this information. 

As noted in 6.1, we publish the following in our About The Journal FactCheck page (https://www.thejournal.ie/the-journal-factcheck/):

"As a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, we adhere to their standards of excellence. If you feel there has been a violation by The Journal FactCheck of the IFCN Code of Principles, you may report that here." (links to: https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/complaints-policy)

We link to the IFCN Code of Principles here and also at the end of every factcheck article too so users have an easy route to seeing if we are in violation of a specific part of the code. 

I have included a screenshot of JFC's explanation of its signatory status. This restates and confirms what JFC has written in its application. It also notes under its About the Journal page that, "Since 2017, we have been the only verified Irish signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) and abide by the organisation's Code of Principles."

As such, I mark it as compliant for Criteria 6.4. 

The Journal provides a direct and easy way for users to submit a complaint, update or correction by including a ‘Send a correction’ button on every article.

This sends the user’s message directly to the section editor. If a correction is deemed necessary, it is noted in italics at the top of the article, with an updated time stamp to show the time of correction.

We also have a section on our home page (https://www.thejournal.ie/) footer which shows we are a member of the Press Council of Ireland and links to their code and contact details.

The Journal states that it abides by their code and processes including participating in mediation when required and publishing and abiding by any decision by the Ombudsman.

I confirm both The Journal (parent) and The Journal FactCheck have publicly-facing corrections policies. As such, I mark Criteria 6.5 compliant.