Various places on the website we state that TjekDet.dk is owned by the registered independent and non-profit organization “Foreningen TJEKDET - National portal for bekæmpelse of fake news” (translates to “The Organization TjekDet - National portal for combating fake news”).

Information on the ownership can be found here:

https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#ejerforhold

https://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

On the "about"-page the official company registration number is stated and there is a link to the official company registration: 

https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/visenhed?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&language=da

Proof of registration is attached.

Yes, the applicant is a legally registered organization in Denmark. 

Re 1: TjekDet.dk was launched in November 2016 by its former owner Mandag Morgen ApS - a commercial media company. This happened at the time when fake news became an issue in the public democratic debate - especially in connection with the American presidential election in 2016. Mandag Morgen ApS took on the task of establishing the first and presently still only fact-checking media in Denmark as a free public service-initiative.

Re 2: The number of editorial staff at TjekDet.dk is currently nine: One editor-in-chief, seven full-time journalists and one paid researcher (student). The board of the organization consists of five persons. Most administrative tasks have been outsourced. List and biographies of the nine staff members can be found here: https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#redaktionen. 

List of the board members can be found here: https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#bestyrelsen

Re 3: The purpose of the organization is to operate the fact-checking media TjekDet. Besides doing pre- and debunking this also includes reference databases with educational and scientific materials about/on misinformation and disinformation. This includes both own developed materials and materials developed by other relevant actors in Denmark.

Re 4: 

The board is expected to introduce a revised strategy in the beginning of 2023. However, the strategy is not changing the overall mission, but introducing new goals and focus points. This being for example the newsroom must focus on conveying in text and video (not memes or audio such as a podcast), focus to a greater extent on social media with particular emphasis on the most popular platforms in Denmark (Facebook, Twitter and TikTok), and generally ensure that the choice of claims and the dissemination thereof have broad public interest in the age group of 15 years and over. The strategy also assumes that the editors should segment their content on the individual social media platforms, so that the communication reflects the nature and target groups of the platforms. In addition, the strategy sets specific KPIs that the editors must meet. These are, for example, a set number of articles per year and the readability of the language.

Furthermore, the organization expects a higher financial baseline in the beginning of 2023, which will make it possible to expand activities and the number of employees. This will mean processes, procedures  and workflow must be revised accordingly and hiring of special skills within certain fields will be necessary. 

Yes, the signatory's main purpose is fact-checking. They create stories where claims are fact-checked, guides, reports, teaching material and provide links to academic research.

From May 21st 2022 to November 21st 2022 TjekDet has published 2,7 fact-checking articles per week in average. Articles about fraud hoaxes, perspectival features, news stories about tendencies within misinformation and desinformation, articles about new learning material and scientific studies within misinformation are not included. Although, many of the perspectival articles can be charachterized as pre-bunking elements.

The mentioned time period was extraordinary as a referendum on the Danish EU defence op-out was called in June 2022. And in October 2022 a parliamentary election was taking place. Elections are one of the essential periods for a fact-checking organization's mission - helping citizens navigate in the public democratic debate so that they can cast their democratic vote on an informed basis. Since two of such elections took place between May and November many fact-checks produced concerns either defense policy or the topics that particularly had the attention of voters and politicians during the election campaign. It was especially climate, defense (Ukraine), inflation/private finances and the healthcare system, where the latter sector is challenged in Denmark. 

Misinformation on the war in Ukraine and the coronavirus/vaccines have reached less spreading in the mentioned period.

An Excel-file containing a categorized overview of the 73 fact-checks published in the mentioned period is attached. TjekDet is the only fact-checking organization in Denmark and in accordance with this IFCN criteria the analyzed period is six months.

Overview of all fact-checks can be found here: https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek. Note: The overview contains more than 73 articles. This is due to the fact that a couple of articles are published before and after the above mentioned overview was made.

The applicant has published 68 fact-checks between the 25th of May (Six months prior to the date of the application) and the 25th of November. With almost three fact-checks a week they certainly reach the threshold. 

In my assessment of the fact-checks published by the applicant during the past three months, I found that they all are in the interest of the welfare of citizens and the society. One story was more focused had a service journalism angle and was focused on individuals' economy, but in the long run that is also related to the welfare of the society.

TjekDet has no affiliation or any kind of institutional relationships with political parties or politicians. The media is owned by the independent non-profit organization “Foreningen TjekDet”. Neither the staff nor members of the board have any kind of political affiliation.

In 2021 the funding of TjekDet came from five main sources:

1. The Organization TjekDet received 425,000 dollars (calculated in todays exchange rate) in 2021 from a national fund, which collects its funds from profits from a company that offer lottery and betting, as well as unclaimed winnings from the same organizations. It is the same fund that granted the financial baseline of TjekDet in 2020, 2021 and 2022. 

More information on this fund and grant can be found here:

(A) About the fund: https://www.udlodningsmidler.dk/om-udlodningsmidler/
(B) Official document about the grant for TjekDet: https://www.ft.dk/RIPdf/samling/20211/aktstykke/aktstk58/20211_aktstk_anmeldt58.pdf

2. Since 2018 TjekDet has been appointed as third party fact-checker for Facebook, which continuously provides revenues. In 2021 the revenue from this partnership was 141.000 dollars.

3. TjekDet received 85.000 dollars from the Ministry of Culture's Democracy Fund. The grant was shared with three other institutions being The Media Council for Children and Young People, the Association of Social Teachers in Denmark and the Communication and Postal Museum ENIGMA. TjekDet's share was approximately one third of the total grant. The money was earmarked for the development of learning material on misinformation entitled Stop. Think. Check it. The material is available here: www.tjekdet.dk/stop.

4. TjekDet received 14,200 dollars from the private fund Illum-Fondet. The money was earmarked for the implementation of a research project on the spread of conspiracy theories during the corona pandemic. Researchers from Roskilde University carried out the scientific project. The grant was used to cover the university's costs as well as the implementation of a conference where the study was presented. An article and the officiel report on the study can be found here: https://www.tjekdet.dk/forskning/hvor-meget-har-konspirationsteorier-fyldt-i-danmark-under-coronakrisen-det-kaster-nyt

5. TjekDet had minor revenue-covering activities in the form of lectures, teaching and similar, which were performed for private institutions only. The activities generated a modest $4,000 in 2021.

The economic foundation is clearly described on the following page: http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

The official financial report for the year 2021 is attached.

Tjekdet is an independent organization and statements on cooperation with external organizations are described on the website of IFCN. However, the detailed account for how much money they receive from each organization that was provided in this applicaiton is not (to my knowledge, but I might have missed it) published on the website.

These details can be found in several places in the “About section”:

http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#mission

The following two amendments has been made on www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi of what concerns the 2022 and 2023 budget presentations:

1: It is specified what the collaboration in the NORDIS project between the researchers and the fact-checking media consists of. It is now stated that "the fact-checking media's tasks in the project consist partly of practical knowledge-sharing with the researchers on the subject at a theoretical level, and partly of a collaborative project between the Nordic fact-checking organizations on the development of transnational work processes that will strengthen cooperation between the organizations, in terms of the exchange of editorial content and development of teaching material and seminars on source criticism and digital education in general."

2: Of what concerns the Google Denmark sponsorship it is now emphasized that TjekDet has prepared the project description itself and is in charge of the development of the described project itself. It is stated that Google is only sponsoring and not involved in the realization of the project.

--------------------

These details can be found in several places in the “About section”:

http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#mission

The signatory explains how to maintain editorial independence regarding the Facebook cooperation. However, similar descriptions are not provided for the Google cooperation and the cooperation with researchers. Only a few sentences are needed.

The signatory explains how to maintain editorial independence regarding the Facebook cooperation. After edits descriptions also provided for the Google cooperation and the cooperation with researchers. 

We are fully transparent on how many times we have fact-checked the various political parties (and their politicians). Statistics are available here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/statistik

Also, the editorial guidelines of the reach, importance of claims and statement on how we select claims to fact-check is thoroughly stated here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet

TjekDet.dk is a signatory of the the press ethical rules in Denmark. English translation here: http://www.pressenaevnet.dk/press-ethical-rules/

These rules states that it is the duty of the media to publish information correctly and promptly, Information which may be prejudicial or insulting or detract from the respect in which individuals should be held, shall be very closely examined before publication, attacks and replies should, where this is reasonable, be published together and in the same way, a clear distinction shall be drawn between factual information and comments, the form and content of headlines and subheadlines shall be substantiated by the article or publication in question, incorrect information shall be corrected on the editors’ own initiative etc.

Also, as a verified signatory of IFCN since April 2018 the organization has followed the IFCN code of conduct.

In order to protect claim holders in a fact-check it is always up for consideration whether the claim holder should be refered to by name. This in order to protect a claim holder that might not be aware of the consequences of a statement etc.

TjekDet especially focus on claims on social media, which have been shared substantially. Therefore, statements not only come from politicians or other prominent decision makers, but people who have many followers on social media or who have obtained viral attention with their claim can also be subject to a fact-check.

TjekDet must always only seek claims that have obtained broad attention and be a politically balanced media, where fact-check articles never express an opinion.

TjekDets fact-checking is always based on science-based facts/documentation or scientists interpretation and assessment thereof. At least two researchers should evaluate a claim – except where this is not possible due to lack of scientists within the topic of the fact-check or if there is only natural source - i.e. an official statistic.

This is also why you will not find fact-checks on TjekDet where conclusions or stated facts are not supported by independent researchers - or in some cases other independent qualified sources.

The sources evaluating the claims are always presented with full name, profession, place of employment and generally also (link to) small bio of the source. This gives the reader transparency.

A name given claim holder is always contacted and asked for comments – offered to respond.

In general, a fact-checking article always follow the same pattern. Typically, first bullet points with a condensate of the claim, the fact check's overall conclusion and short explanation of the conclusion. Next the articles thoroughly explain the claim, where and in which context it is put forward, by whom (if possible to identify the claimholder) followed by an immediate evaluation on the claim based on experts conclusions. This first section is followed by in-depth background and interviews with (at least two) experts or other qualified sources (persons, statistics or other kind of reliable evidence) and the basis of their conclusions. We strive to link to relevant scientific documentation, official statistics etc. which supports the conclusions of the experts. Finally, the claimholder (where it has been possible to identify) is asked for comments and offered the possibility of explaining his or her reasons and/or documentation.

This is often not followed if the fact-check concerns an manipulated image, quotation, video etc. where we cannot locate the persons behind the image. In these cases the article instead follows "an educational flow", where we step-by-step explains how we have fact-checked the background and origin of the image. The purpose of this flow is to provide the readers with tools which the user in the future can use to fact-check other doubtfull images they might see on the internet.

Please note: In 2022 the selected claims for fact-checking has been dominated by four major 'events': The coronavirus/vaccines, war in Ukraine, Danish referendum on the EU defense opt-out and parliamentary elections.

Examples:

1. "Boycott or visit: Is the Minister of Culture right that she cannot go to Qatar?" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/kulturministeren-kan-i-udgangspunktet-ikke-rejse-til-qatar-men-den-situation-har-hun-selv

Comment: In the period leading up to the football world championship in Qatar, harsh criticism of the conditions, not least for migrant workers in Qatar, has been circulating, particularly from political circles. At the same time, it has triggered opposite misinformation in favor of the government in Qatar. In this example 1, critics of the conditions in Qatar are fact-checked. It is the Danish Acting Culture Minister who claims that she cannot go to Qatar because Denmark did not have a formal government at the time, due to government negotiations were taking place after parliamentary elections. The opposition wants her to go to Qatar to send a political statement. The fact-check concludes that it is mostly correct what she says, but there is small loophole. The fact-check demonstrates nuances that speaks in favor of both the minister and the opposition. The article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder(s), (3) description of how the claim has been put forward in the public democratic debate, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) The politician is invited to comment, which a party spokes person, however, declined.

2. "Yes, the ice is actually melting: 5,000 billion tons of ice have disappeared in Greenland in 20 years" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/5000-milliarder-ton-er-forsvundet-i-groenland-paa-20-aar

Comment: In several similar-sounding Facebook posts, it is claimed that the Greenland ice sheet is not melting, but rather getting bigger - exactly the opposite of the common view of the world's climate experts. According to the posts, increased rainfall has made the ice cap thicker. But that is not correct. The statistics actually state that the ice in Greenland is shrinking. Over the past 20 years, 5,000 gigatons of ice have disappeared according to scietific data. The fact-check also reveals that an apparent image from NASA proves it. However, it is not a photo, but rather a graphic illustration that does not substantiate the claim. The article provides a thorough explanation of how the misunderstanding arises, describing a natural cycle. The article is thus an example of how the reader is not just served a simple conclusion, but instead is introduced to the technical explanation in comprehensible Danish. The article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting where the claim originates, (3) short conclusion, (4) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) Although the claim has circulated in more than one post, the fact-check finds the original claim holder, who naturally gets the possibility of commenting on the experts conclusion.

3. "According to Franciska Rosenkilde, Alternative's proposal for an aid package will not increase inflation. But it's hard to say" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/ifoelge-franciska-rosenkilde-vil-alternativets-forslag-til-hjaelpepakke-ikke-oege

Comment: Fact checkers are often accused of having a leftist bias in their prioritization of claims to fact-check. Among other things, this article, which was put forward by a party leader from the far left wing in Danish politics, disproves that. The party leader said during a televised political debate that a proposal to help economically stressed Danes will not increase inflation, because consumption will not be increased either. But according to experts, there is no evidence to claim that this should be the case. Rather the opposite. The proposal will probably result in increased consumption, researchers says. The article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder(s), (3) description of how the claim has been put forward in the public democratic debate, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) The politician is invited to comment, but despite several inquiries and a few days of waiting, TjekDet does not receive a reply from the party leader.

4. "Alex Vanoplagh says it takes six years to build a nuclear power plant. But it can easily take 10-15 years before it delivers power" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/alex-vanopslagh-siger-det-tager-seks-aar-bygge-et-atomkraftvaerk-men-der-kan-nemt-gaa-10

Comment: This is a fact-check of a claim stated by a party leader from the right wing in the Danish parliament. The current European energy crisis has been high on the agenda for the past several months among politicians and the "ordinary Dane" who is concerned about the private economy. For historical reasons, Denmark does not have nuclear power plants, but the political debate has been characterized by a growing desire for nuclear power plants to be the way forward, because in the long run it is cheap electricity and at the same time climate friendly. And it is a quick solution, another argument often goes. In this fact check, a politician claims that it takes an average of six years to build a nuclear power plant. The article makes sure to state that there are circumstances that speak both for and against the claim. While the claim is not wrong, it's also not the whole story - there is necessary context. Because if Denmark is to have a nuclear power plant, it will take many years of preparation and legislative changes. It is thus not "a quick fix", as history shows it can easily take 10-15 years from the initial phase until the power plant is ready and can supply power. Also this article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder(s), (3) description of how the claim has been put forward in the public democratic debate, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary, (6) The politician is invited to comment, but despite several inquiries and a few days of waiting, TjekDet does not receive a reply from the party leader. This is probably due to the fact that the claim was put forward during parliamentary elections, where it is difficult for all journalists to get comments from politicians being bussy campaigning.

5. "No, it is not the end of saying 'mother' and 'father' in Copenhagen Municipality" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/nej-det-er-ikke-slut-med-sige-mor-og-far-i-koebenhavns-kommune

Comment: Fact checkers should not only investigate claims made by politicians or in random postings on the Internet. It is also important that a fact-checking media does not hesitate to fact-check colleagues at other established media. This fact check is an example of just that. A major national daily wrote in an article that the Municipality of Copenhagen has dropped addressing parents as 'mother' and 'father'. But the newspaper's story rests both on a misunderstanding and a tightening of the actual conditions. The article refers to a guide from the municipality, which has been sent to the municipality's employees, who are asked to use more gender-inclusive language as part of the municipality's LGBTI+ policy. But there is nothing to say that the employees are no longer allowed to say mother or father. Also this fact-check follows our general structure. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder(s), (3) description of how the claim has been put forward in the public democratic debate, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation which includes the only relevant source, which is the person in the municipality who is responsible for the department that issued the guidance. This fact-check therefore is an example of, how experts not always is relevant - especially when there is one obvious source to counter the claim. (6) Finally, the news paper naturally is presented with the conclusion of the fact-check.

6. "Disconnected from reality? Most members of parliament have actually had a real job" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/de-fleste-folketingsmedlemmer-har-faktisk-haft-et-rigtigt-arbejde

Comment: Politicians are often accused on social media that they have never had a real job, but only have professional experience from positions in party organisations or no professional experience at all. This fact check is an example of the fact that (1) fact checkers can often produce the necessary basis for the conclusion in a fact check themselves (by collecting and processing data themselves) - and are thus not always dependent on researchers, (2) it is not 'just another' fact check which investigates a claim made by politicians, and (3) the fact-checking is based on painstaking work that ensures that the collected data is carefully examined so that no (unintentional) political bias occurs. Also this article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder(s) - in this case, however, there is not a single claim holder, but a consistant claim circulating - (3) description of how the claim has been put forward, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation which in this case includes carefully collected data. Since there is no clear claim holder nobody is presented with the conclusion of our fact-check - except from a politician who reacts to our findings. The politician is, however, not one of the claim holders.

7. "Vladimir Putin's mobilization did not lead to a 35 kilometer queue at the border with Finland" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/vladimir-putins-mobilisering-foerte-ikke-til-35-kilometer-lang-koe-ved-graensen-til

Comment: TjekDet as well as other fact-checking organizations worldwide have repeatedly fact-checked disinformation (in some cases apparently) put forward by Russia in connection with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, this fact check takes the opposite approach as it investigates a claim that there are very long queues at the Finnish border because Russian men are fleeing in droves from being called up for military service and sent to war in Ukraine. It is correct that Russian men have fled the country, several media reports show, but in this case a specific claim of a 35 kilometer long queue at the Russian-Finnish border is being investigated. And the conclusion is that it is fake news. The Finnish border authority states that at that time there had not been such a large mass flight towards Finland. Again this article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. 

8. "Det er manipuleret! På det oprindelige billede var der ikke et hagekors på denne ukrainske kampvogn" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/paa-det-oprindelige-billede-var-der-ikke-et-hagekors-paa-denne-ukrainske-kampvogn

Comment: Very often - and especially during the war in Ukraine - false or altered images go viral and are subject to fact-checking. This article is an example of an image where a swastika has been tampered with on a Ukrainian tank truck - presumably as a ploy into the hoax about the Ukrainian population claiming the country is Nazi. The article here is an example of the fact that you cannot/should not always follow the same article structure in a fact check. As for fact-checking viral images and videos, TjekDet follows a different template than mentioned in the above examples. The article still opens with a brief presentation of the image and the built-in claim, explanation of dissemination, followed by a conclusion of the fact-check. But then TjekDet takes a different approach with pictures and videos. Instead, the article is structured in such a way that it provides an educational insight into how the fact checker has examined the image. Relevant digital tools are presented, which the reader can also access on the Internet. The entire research is thus presented - step-by-step - for the reader to learn from.

9. "Europe's biggest newspaper used Chinese explosion to cover Ukraine" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/europas-stoerste-avis-brugte-kinesisk-eksplosion-i-daekning-af-ukraine

Comment: While example 8 was a fact-check that investigated a false claim about Ukrainian authorities and people, example 9 has the opposite starting point. Since the Russian invasion, viral posts have repeatedly claimed that Western media are exaggerating their coverage and images of and from the war. This fact check is an example of that actually (unintentionally) happening. A German newspaper used video clips about the war in Ukraine, which showed burning buildings and more. On social media in particular, criticism arose (again) of the media for exaggerating - and in this case the criticism was justified. The images actually came from a fire in a Chinese city in 2015. Also this article follows the same approach when fact-checking images or videos - it provides an educational insight into how the fact checker has examined the image. Relevant digital tools are presented, which the reader can also access on the Internet. The entire research is thus presented - step-by-step. 

10. "Yes, the blades from wind turbines are buried, but why not recycle them?" https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/ja-vingerne-fra-vindmoeller-bliver-rigtig-nok-gravet-ned-men-hvorfor-genbruger-man-dem

Comment: This article is an example of the importance of not only fact-checking false information, but also fact-check true claims. This applies not least when readers approach and call for fact-checking, which is the case in this example. This article examines a viral claim that wind turbine blades are buried when they are scrapped. The claim was often accompanied by a picture where one allegedly sees a bulldozer burying wind turbine blades. TjekDet could tell readers that the claim and image are true. It became one of the most read articles on tjekdet.dk this year. The article follows the general structure for our fact-checks. That is (1) a condensate of the claim, (2) presenting the claim holder(s), (3) description of how the claim has been put forward in the public democratic debate, (4) short conclusion, (5) In-depth explanation including at least two experts and presentation/reference to documentation where and when necessary. In this case the claim was spread by thousands of people in individual posts, why it was not possible to appoint a specific claim holder. The article, therefore, does not contain criticism of a specific person or organisation.

In the sample of 20 stories, I found that the applicant usually provide three sources to each fact-check. These are in most cases scientists at Danish universities. Occasionally, there are fact-checks where the applicant refer to secondary sources.

All these parameters are explained on the following page: https://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet

On the page, with the mission statement of TjekDet this requested information also is included: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

The applicant describes in a very clear manner how the fact-checks are selected. In my sample of evaluated fact-checks I found that both sides of political issues are covered and there was no tendency to favor certain topics or views.

I did not find stories where the reader might conclude there would be interests of the sources. The sources used are mostly scientists. If politicians are quoted it is to ask them about their claim. 

In my sample of fact-checked stories, I did not find any tendency to support any one side. Tjekdet is an independent organization as stated on the website. Links to sources are provided when relevant such as to Danish Authorities or public data sets.

This statement is included in our ethical rules which are described here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet#regelsaet

The applicant describes their policy on non-partianship sets out out its policy on non-partisanship on the website. Furthermore, in my sample, I did not find any courses that were anonymous. There were occasionally secondary sources, but the majority of the fact-checks relied on multiple primary sources.

There are links provided to all of the fact-checks that I have assessed. They are used for various purposes, for example links to bios of sources, links to public data sets or public agencies, links to statements, links to other media companies or links to previously published relevant fact-checks, to name a few. The sources are most often scientists or experts and they are always presented with title and where they work. In my sample I did not find any potential issues regarding safety of source. 

In rare instances only secondary sources have been used - then it is a matter of that a claim have been fact-checked by another fact-checker. Other than that, in my sample I found that primary sources are always used. 

I found that the most common was to use at least three sources in a fact-check.

I did not find that the interests of the sources were described, however it was not relevant to describe them. In the case of those that pose a claim, then the potential interests of that person was most often described.

TjekDet is owned by the independent non-profit “Organization TjekDet - National portal for combating fake news”.

https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/index.php?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&language=en-gb&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&q=visenhed

Yes, there is a section about the finances of Tjekdet where sources of funding is described. These are also regulated in the statues of the organization and clearly explained.

TjekDet is an independent organization. Official registration can be found in the national company register: https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/index.php?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&language=en-gb&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined&q=visenhed

Also, the “About section” of the website includes descriptions of ownership and organizational structure: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#ejerforhold

A statement of the funding can be found here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/oekonomi

Tjekdet is a standalone organization.

The organizational structure and statement on the editorial control can be found here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

Yes, in the about section the organization of the applicant is described and the different levels of the staff.

Biographies of the editorial staff - including the editor-in-chief - can be found here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#redaktionen

Members of the board are described here. They, however, do not control the daily editorial output, but are responsible for the overall strategy of the media only: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os#bestyrelsen

Yes, there are biographies for staff and a list is also provided accounting for former staff members.

This is done several places on the website:

1) We have a dedicated "tip us"-page, where users can tip us either by name or anonymously: http://www.tjekdet.dk/tip-os

2) A graphical and text-based call continuously appears on the font page https://www.tjekdet.dk/

3) In our mission statement there is section solely about this encouraging the users to contact and tip us https://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

4) We link to our TIP US-page in the sidebar menu and several places in the “About”-section.

5) On Facebook and Twitter we periodically encourage users to tip us. For example, in the autumn we carried out a major advertising campaign on Facebook and Instagram in particular, where readers are encouraged to follow and tip TjekDet with suggestions for fact-checking. Unfortunately, the ad is inactive, which is why I can't link to it, but a screenshot of the add is attached.

6) All articles have names of the journalists and their email addresses. Main telephone number and main email address is visible on the bottom of all pages and also mentioned in the about section.

Contact details are provided for staff members. A general e-mail adress for Tjekdet is also provided and a form for sending in claims and tips.

This statement is described here: http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet

The methodology of Tjekdet is very ambitious. The description of the method is easy to follow.

The applicant states that the main criteria for selecting a claim to fact-check should have gained greater attention in the public debate. In my assessment I found that this was the case for the stories of my sample. Most of them are based on claims made by Danish politicians and many are based on viral claims circulating in social media.

The stories in the sample of fact-checks follows a similar pattern where a number (most often 3) scientists are used as sources to give a deeper background to the claim of the story. I would not say that the applicant systematically try to support a claim, rather the norm is to undermine it. This has to do with the nature of the claim. For political claims it can be both a story about undermining a claim or to support it, or partly support it. 

From my assessment, a similar method is always used to assess a claim regardless of the type of claim. In rare instances there are stories where secondary sources are used and where the applicant mainly credits other fact-checkers. Then, they deviate from their usual pattern, but those instances are rare.

Yes, Tjekdet regularly writes that they have contacted the person behind a claim and in surprisingly many of the stories, this person has also responded and is quoted in the story. When the person behind a claim has been contacted but did not respond to Tjekdet, this is also stated in the story.  At times, spokespersons for a certain politician responds or public agency responds instead of the politician. 

In our mission statement it is stated: http://www.tjekdet.dk/om-os

(QUOTATION): "Our readers are truth hunters - We can only reach our goals with your help. We are ready to check out a claim, statement or message you have heard or seen in the public debate. And if you have even researched the matter, we also very much welcome your material. We want to involve all readers in the process, and call to help us increase the quality of public debate by fact-checking. Tip us at the email address tip@tjekdet.dk or via our special tip form here, where tips can also be submitted anonymously. We carefully evaluate each tip, including whether these meet our ethical and general editorial guidelines for when we want and can fact-check a claim. If the necessary requirements are not met, the editors will refrain from fact checking the claim. You can read more about these requirements below". (END OF QUOTATION).

A shorter version of this text can be found on the tip-page http://www.tjekdet.dk/tip-os

Note: A revised strategy is going to be implemented in the beginning of 2023, why the text cited above might look differentlyhttp://www.tjekdet.dk/fejl-og-fakta og located on another page if this application is assessed at that time.

Yes, the applicant has information on how to send in claims for fact-checks on its webpage. The method section also describes what the readers can expect in terms of what claims that will be selected for fact-checks.

http://www.tjekdet.dk/fejl-og-fakta

The corrections and complaints policy is detailed and accessible. It is an excellent example of how to explain these matters in a clear manner to the general public.

It is very clear from the policy what the general public can expect from Tjekdet in terms of corrections. How to complain and what is a valid complaint with regards to Danish press ethical system is described. 

The correction page currently holds ten posts made during the past 12 months. Eight of these ten corrections were made by the TjekDet team on its own initiative and generally have the character of minor additions and clarifications that did not rely on external inquiries. Two of the ten corrections were made due to external inquiries. One inquiry came from the claim holder in a fact check, while the other inquiry came from an interest organisation working within the topic of the fact-check. Both inquiries gave rise to clarifications and corrections, which, however, did not change the conclusions of the two articles.

The first article investigated whether Danish agriculture binds as much CO2 as the whole of Denmark emits, and is therefore not part of the problem but part of the solution to the climate crisis, as the fact-checked post stated.

The second article investigated whether two specific members of the European Commission have said that they want an EU army of 50,000 men. 

In the first article in question (https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/dansk-landbrug-udraabes-som-loesningen-paa-klimakrisen-med-misvisende-regnestykke) TjekDet acknowledged that the article contained two wordings which gave the impression that the claim holders Facebook post stated that agriculture's CO2 absorption is permanent and that the point that agriculture's stored CO2 is quickly released again is missing. Both wordings removed since these easily could be misunderstood as they actually occured in the post of the claim holder. Additional points in the claim holder's inquiry had to be rejected (see attached copy of email correspondence), as the editors could not recognize the points as they were presented by the claim holder. In the editors response, it was encouraged to contact the Danish Press Board (as TjekDet is obliged to do being a signatory of the Danish press ethical code) if the editor's decision could not be recognized. The editors are not yet aware of such an inquiry having taken place. 

In the second article in question (https://www.tjekdet.dk/faktatjek/messerschmidts-skraemmebillede-i-partilederdebat-har-intet-hold-i-virkeligheden) the editors received an inquiry from an organization, which was not part of/not mentioned in the fact-check. The organization raised a few reasonable points of criticism, which the editors accepted. It was clarified that it is a matter of definition how the term "EU army"  generally is understood, and that it can be understood both as a pan-European army, which the EU has sovereign control of, and as an intergovernmental cooperation based on voluntariness. It is also elaborated on what the European Council's Helsinki Headline Goals cover. Finally, the title of the article was changed so that it better reflects the claim being fact-checked. The previous headline was rather misleading and did not reflect the content of the article correctly. However, the overall conclusion of the fact-checked claim stands. VEDHÆFT DOKUMENTATION

In both mentioned articles a correction box was added to the articles. Our (final) answers in both cases are attached.

Yes, the applicant has a transparent corrections page where corrections are listed.

This information is given both here http://www.tjekdet.dk/fejl-og-fakta

and here http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet#regelsaet

For an inexplicable technical reason, the link was not visible (underlined), but the text was clickable. On the page about TjekDet's methodology (www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet#saadanfaktatjekkervi), a line break has been inserted in the text in the section on how to complain about content, after which the link appeared underlined and thus visible to the reader (see attached image 1). The link takes the reader to the detailed "Errors and facts" page (www.tjekdet.dk/fejl-og-fakta) with a description of the complaint process. Here, IFCN appears as part of the process, and there is a link on the page to IFCN's complaint form (image 2).

This information is given both here http://www.tjekdet.dk/fejl-og-fakta

and here http://www.tjekdet.dk/arbejdsproces-og-etisk-regelsaet#regelsaet

The applicant does an excellent job in describing how they are bound to certain principles when being a signatory of the IFCN. There are links to the IFCN, however I did not find a link to the complaints page on the IFCN site.

The applicant does an excellent job in describing how they are bound to certain principles when being a signatory of the IFCN. There are links to the IFCN, and after edito the link to the complaints page on the IFCN site is now visible.

TjekDet.dk is not a part of a media company. TjekDet is owned by the registered independent and non-profit organization “Foreningen TJEKDET - National portal for bekæmpelse of fake news” (translates to “The Organization TjekDet - National portal for combating fake news”). This organization has solely the purpose to operate the fact-checking media. https://datacvr.virk.dk/data/index.php?enhedstype=virksomhed&id=41425695&language=en-gb&q=visenhed&soeg=tjekdet&type=undefined.

Tjekdet is an independent organization.