Code of Principles

The FCN Code of Principles sets the ethical and professional standards for fact-checking organizations. It emphasizes accuracy, transparency, non-partisanship, and accountability in the fight against misinformation. By adhering to these principles, FCN Signatories commit to maintaining integrity and public trust in fact-based journalism.

Fact-Checking Network Code of Principles

The Misinformation Combat Alliance (“MCA”) is a representative body set up as a cross-industry collaborative effort to combat and limit the spread of misinformation through targeted interventions and activities. The MCA has established an autonomous and independent self-regulatory body called the “Fact Checking Network Board” (‘FCN Board’ or ‘Board’) that, inter alia, decides applications for grant of ‘verified signatory’ status.

The Code of Principles framed by the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) and the European Fact Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) has been a reference point for this document.

The grant of verified signatory status depends, inter alia, on all eligible applicants demonstrating commitment to adherence to the Code of Principles (“MCA’s Code of Principles”) elaborated below.

Words and expressions used and not defined herein, but used and/or defined in the MCA Charter or the FCN Board shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the MCA Charter/FCN Board, as the case may be.

Principle 1: A commitment to non-partisanship and fairness

The Applicants/ verified signatories must use the same standard for every fact check. They do not concentrate their fact-checking on any one side or advocate a policy or ideological position on the issue being fact checked. They follow the same process for every fact check and allow the evidence to dictate the conclusions.

To be compliant with principles of non-partisanship and fairness, the applicant/ verified signatory must meet these criteria :

1.1 It fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim.

1.2 It does not unduly concentrate its fact-checking on any one side, considers the reach and importance of claims it selects to fact check, and has published a short statement on its website to set out the methodology deployed in selecting claims to fact check. In general, it must demonstrate impartiality in its work.

1.3 It expressly discloses (on its website and/or in the fact check) any reasonable conflict of interest, other relevant interests, or bias, including that of the experts or organisations cited in the fact check. Further, it discloses in its fact checks any commercial or other such relationships that it has, that a member of the public might reasonably conclude could influence the findings of the fact check.

1.4 It is not affiliated with nor declares or shows support for any political party, any politician or political candidate, nor does it advocate for or against any policy positions on any issues save for transparency and accuracy in public debate.

1.5 It sets out its policy on non-partisanship for staff on its website/in internal documents. Other than for the sake of transparency and accuracy, its employees and consultants are prohibited from making any partisan statements or being involved in advocacy or policy debates on issues that may reasonably leave the audience with questions about its biases.

1.6 It discloses any ownership or stake in its organization held by sitting members of parliament, assembly, local governments; office bearers or spokespersons of political parties; or those directly or indirectly associated with political parties.

1.7 It does not employ anyone who holds a salaried and/or prominent position in a political party, government, state, or public company under the direct or indirect control of a political party, government, or the state.

1.8 In general, it is editorially free and politically independent.

Explanation 1: This clause does not prohibit any applicant/ verified signatory from being or becoming a content distribution partner or providing inputs on policy matters/ making policy submissions, provided that such an arrangement or transaction does not compromise the applicant’s/ verified signatory’s editorial freedom.

Explanation 2: This clause does not prohibit any applicant/ verified signatory from engaging with the central or state government or any political party for the purpose of, inter alia, media literacy initiatives, PSA initiatives, and subscription to products.

1.9 It only advocates for issues that are relevant to the mission of fact-checking, strengthening democracy, and improving general transparency and accountability of various organs of the state, and are compatible with the reputation for independence and impartiality.

Principle #2: A commitment to standards of transparency of sources

The applicants/ verified signatories must ensure that their readers can independently verify the findings in its fact checks themselves.

To be compliant on sourcing, the applicant/ verified signatory must meet these criteria:

2.10 It identifies the source of all significant evidence used in its fact checks and provides relevant links where the source is available online, such that its readers can replicate their work if they wish. In cases where identifying the source would compromise the source’s personal security, it provides as much detail as possible to provide without compromising the source’s safety.

2.11 It uses the best available primary, not secondary, source of evidence. Where suitable primary sources are not available, it explains the use of secondary sources.

2.12 It checks all key elements of claims against more than one named source of evidence, except where the one source is the only source relevant and available on the topic.

2.13 It always identifies and discloses its relevant interests, including any commercial relations, and that of its sources, in the fact checks, where the reader might reasonably conclude those interests could influence the accuracy of the evidence provided.

Principle #3: A commitment to transparency of funding and organisation

The applicants/ verified signatories must be transparent about their funding sources. If they accept funding from other organizations, they must ensure that their funders have no influence over the conclusions being reached in the fact-checks published. This requires, inter alia, detailing/publishing the professional background of all key figures in the organization; explaining the organizational structure and legal status in a simple manner on the website; and providing a way for readers to communicate with them.

To be compliant on funding and organization, the applicant/ verified signatory must meet these criteria:

3.14 If it is an independent organization, it has a page on its website detailing each source of funding that accounts for 7.5% or more of total revenue for the previous financial year. This page must also set out the legal form in which the organization is registered (such as a non-profit, company etc) and the applicable details of its directors, and role of shareholders.

3.15 If it is a dedicated fact-checking section or unit in an organization, it declares that there is no editorial interference by the parent organisation on the fact checks being carried out.

3.16 Regardless of whether it is an independent organisation or part of a bigger parent company, it discloses the names of persons or entities holding over 10% of the shares/stakes in it.

3.17 It has a statement on its website setting out –

(i) its organizational structure;

(ii) how and by whom editorial control is exercised;

(iii) that there is no editorial interference on the fact checks being carried out; and

(iv) the professional biography of all those who, according to the organizational structure, play a significant part in its editorial output.

3.18 It provides an easy means on its website and/or via social media for users to communicate with its editorial and fact-checking team.

Principle #4: A commitment to standards and transparency of methodology

The applicants/ verified signatories must explain the methodology they use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct their fact checks and encourage readers to send claims to fact-check.

To be compliant on the methodology, the applicant/ verified signatory must meet these criteria:

4.19 It has a statement published on its website about the methodology used to select, research, write, verify, and publish its fact checks.

4.20 It selects claims to fact check primarily on the basis of the reach and importance of the claims. Further, wherever possible, it explains the reason for choosing to fact check a particular claim.

4.21 It sets out all the relevant evidence in a fact check that appears to support the claim, as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine it. It assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same applicable high standards, regardless of who made the claim.

4.22 It makes a demonstrable effort to contact the person/ organization making the claim to seek supporting evidence, keeping in view that---

(i) if the proponent of the claim fails to reply in a timely manner, this should not impede the fact check;

(ii) if the proponent adds caveats to the claim, it is free to continue with checking the original claim;

(iii) if it determines that reaching out to the proponent of a claim may endanger their online/offline safety in any manner, it may not reach out to such person.

Provided that this does not impose any obligation on the applicant/ verified signatory to contact any person/ organisation making the claim if the claim is already in the public domain, including through social media.

4.23 It encourages readers to send in claims to fact check – while making it clear what readers can legitimately expect to be fact-checked; what is not fact-checkable; and expected turn-around time, if possible.

4.24 It quotes experts after establishing their credibility on the relevant topic with, inter alia, professional work experience, educational qualification or peculiar circumstances that will qualify him/ her to stand as specially qualified.

4.25 It ensures each investigation undergoes at least one round of editing before publication, by someone other than the author.

4.26 It presents findings in precise, factual, and non-emotive language while taking care not to overstate conclusions. This means that the opinions of authors/fact-checkers in the article should never be included.

Principle #5: A commitment to an open and honest corrections policy

The applicants/ verified signatories must publish their corrections policy and follow it transparently and scrupulously, making an effort, as far as possible, to ensure that readers see the corrected version.

To be compliant on corrections policy, the applicant/ verified signatory must meet these criteria:

5.27 It has a corrections or complaints policy that is easily and prominently visible and accessible on its website.

5.28 Its corrections policy sets out a clear definition of what it does and does not cover how major mistakes, especially those requiring revised conclusions of a fact check, are handled; and the fact that some complaints may justify no response. Further, it adheres to the corrections policy scrupulously.

5.29 Where credible evidence is provided demonstrating that it has made a mistake worthy of correction, it makes the correction openly and transparently, seeking to ensure as far as possible that readers of the original see the correction and the corrected version. Further, it expressly acknowledges any edits or additions in the fact check with an update note in the same publication, with the correction being prominently indicated.

5.30 It sets out the complaints policy expressly. It informs its readers (either on its corrections/complaints page or on the webpage where it declares itself an MCA verified signatory) that if they believe the verified signatory is violating the MCA Code of Principles, they may raise a complaint with the Fact Checking Network (FCN) Board through the link provided on the verified signatory’s website.

5.31 If the applicant/ verified signatory is the fact-checking unit of a media company, its parent company adopts and adheres to the same corrections policy as is being followed by it.

Principle #6: A commitment to respect intellectual property rights

The applicants/ verified signatories must observe and demonstrate respect for intellectual property rights in all forms including text, image, audio or video.

To be compliant on intellectual property rights, the applicant/ verified signatory must meet these criteria:

6.32 It publishes all fact checks on its website, and does not keep the fact checks behind a paywall. The fact checks should be easily accessible in the public domain and without cost.

6.33 It observes & respects intellectual property laws, creative commons licences, copyrights when using, modifying, and/or merging any content.

6.34 It allows, where possible & applicable, the organization’s content to be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons license with source attribution.

6.35 It discloses all references and sources that have been used in the fact-check.

6.36 It respects the output of other fact checking institutions/initiatives and independent fact checkers, and does not republish or reuse any part thereof without obtaining explicit consent or crediting the source clearly; and where possible, does it only after notifying them, based on the license type of the content.

Principle #7: A commitment to privacy and safety

The applicants/ verified signatories must have an identifiable and demonstrable commitment to privacy and safety, and must, as far as possible, meet these criteria:

6.37 It obscures the image and/or identity of subjects of a fact-check article when there is a reasonable concern for their safety, privacy, and dignity, including but not limited to, images/identity of children, victims of heinous crimes and sexual assault against women, and other vulnerable individuals.

6.38 It is restrictive, respectful, and considerate when mentioning or identifying minors (as permitted under existing law) and makes all possible efforts to protect their privacy.

6.39 It anonymises, or at least partially conceals, any personal information (such as telephone numbers, IDs or passports, bank account numbers, email addresses etc) that could allow the harassment of people, except in cases where it forms the crucial evidence of a fact-check, subject to applicable laws including the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. Even in this case, demonstrable and good faith efforts have to be taken to ensure that the permission of the concerned individual is sought for publishing such information. No such restrictions may apply to personal information that is already in the public domain, subject to applicable laws.

6.40 It has put in place measures that aim to address the risk of trauma or harassment experienced by staff as a result of its activities, including but not limited to, providing training to prevent and identify symptoms.

End