CivilNet is an independent online media and television platform with a focus on strengthening Armenia’s democratic and economic development. CivilNet’s reporting, which reaches more than 11 million people annually, covers culture, politics, business, and technology.

Methodology

CivilNet Check (#CivilNetCheck) is CivilNet’s fact-checking unit, operating since December 2021.

Founded in 2011, CivilNet is one of the leading independent media outlets in Armenia. Since its inception, CivilNet has provided multi-faceted, evidence-based news and analysis. The establishment of CivilNet’s fact-checking unit as a separate department was motivated by the imperative to counter the flow of misinformation, fake news and manipulation, and to present the truth to the public.

#CivilNetCheck’s main mission is to combat fake news in Armenia, uncover and inform the public about misinformation and manipulation, and promote fact-checking journalism.

Aiming to become a member of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), #CivilNetCheck aligns its operations and methodology with the standards of the U.S. Poynter Journalism Institute. We are guided by the fact-checking principles of the International Fact-Checking Network:

1. Commitment to impartiality and fairness
2. Commitment to transparency in sourcing
3. Commitment to transparency about the Foundation and its funding
4. Commitment to transparency of methodology
5. Commitment to making corrections in an open and honest manner

Structure of #CivilnetCheck

#CivilNetCheck consists of a team of responsible and professional journalists, which is continuously expanding.

The editor of #CivilNetCheck is Ani Grigoryan, whose responsibilities include selecting and approving topics and materials, checking and editing journalists’ articles, and rechecking the facts included in them, as well as writing articles. Leading #CivilNetCheck, she is also responsible for keeping the department up-to-date, implementing new tools, and meeting international standards of fact-checking journalism. She reports to the CivilNet editor-in-chief.

#CivilNetCheck journalists/fact-checkers Hovhannes Nazaretyan and Hayk Hovhannisyan are the main authors of CivilNet’s fact-checking materials. They monitor the media, social networks and the general Internet, follow the speeches and interviews of political and public figures, identify the statements and claims that need to be verified, carry out their verification and, after coordinating with the editor, prepare articles and materials about them. They report to the #CivilNetCheck editor and the CivilNet editor-in-chief.

Videos and visual content published by #CivilNetCheck are produced with the help of CivilNet’s video production team. Articles and materials are published and distributed on social networks through CivilNet’s social media specialists. More information on the specialists mentioned above can be found at this link.

The #CivilNetCheck team also supports CivilNet journalists in preparing articles with accurate facts and without manipulation. If necessary, the team checks the facts in the other journalists’ materials, provides information from various open sources and registries and contributes to making the most accurate and fact-based CivilNet products.

Funding

CivilNet cooperates with local, international and Armenian Diaspora organizations and individuals within the framework of various programs. Information about them is available on the CivilNet website. The information about CivilNet and #CivilNetCheck’s donors and their logos are openly and fully posted to the CivilNet website.

Editors and journalists’ conduct

Political neutrality

We do not directly or indirectly support any political party or power, nor do we take sides in national or international conflicts or disputes.

For us, political neutrality and impartiality are fundamental principles. In order to avoid political conflicts of interest, CivilNet does not allow its journalists to engage in political activities or join or openly support any political power or party.

#CivilNetCheck must maintain absolute impartiality during its activities and not express any political preferences. Furthermore, funding or support by any political party or power is prohibited.

Journalists’ obligations

Members of #CivilNetCheck are obliged to be honest, impartial in their materials, refrain from expressing personal opinions and attitudes, be transparent about their sources and refrain from selectively choosing facts.

When checking claims and statements attributed to politicians and public figures, journalists are obliged to make sure that the statement was made by the person. In addition, journalists are obliged not to manipulate or distort quoted speech and to present it in the correct and adequate context.

• We never assume, and we make sure and verify all the facts and data.
• We use and accept only official documents as a basis for reporting.
• We do not rely on the facts published by other media. No matter how reliable they seem, we always double-check them.
• We are as accurate as possible when working with data and numbers.
• We avoid evaluative judgments that are impossible to prove.

#CivilNetCheck encourages team members to regularly attend various courses and conferences to gain new knowledge, develop new skills and learn new tools. For maximum credibility, our journalists continuously strive to improve their skills in ensuring accuracy, which is one of the fundamental principles of the organization’s mission.

How do we choose which claims to check?

On a daily basis, our journalists are looking for statements and claims “worthy” of being checked. The team monitors, watches and reads statements, interviews, speeches, statements and messages from politicians, public figures, political powers, state and government bodies, as well as their posts on social networks. They monitor broadcast television, online and print media and social media.

Regional (Russian, Iranian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Turkish) and international media publications and news related to Armenia and Armenians are also at the center of the journalists’ attention. For #CivilNetCheck, it doesn’t matter which political power or figure makes the wrong claim or statement. The team addresses all political powers.

Thus, when we notice statements, facts, or claims that seem suspicious and may be inaccurate, misleading, or delusive, we identify and check them.

First and foremost, we try to contact the person or organization that made the claim, asking them to provide the facts and data that prove it. If a person or organization provides facts to support their claims, and we are convinced that they are true, we do not address them. Exceptions are the cases when there is also doubt and discussion among the public regarding the accuracy of that statement or data.

However, if the person or organization does not cooperate with us, does not provide facts to prove their claims and statements, or the data provided does not prove the truth of their claims, we check those claims ourselves.

Since we cannot verify all claims, we select the most relevant and important ones

Our selection of fact-checked materials is broad and based on the following criteria:

• Does the statement seem wrong or misleading?
• Is the topic relevant and of public interest?
• If it is wrong, can it harm the public or democracy by distorting public opinion? We do not address slips of the tongue and minor mistakes.
• Are there facts in the statement that are verifiable and can they be singled out? We never verify or comment on opinions, predictions and rhetoric.
• After reading or listening to the statement, will an average person have questions as to its accuracy?
• How much has the information spread? We investigate whether the statement or claim has been shared and reprinted by media outlets with large audiences and high visibility, as well as by various individuals and platforms on social media.
• Is it possible for the information to be further disseminated or repeated by other people? We also study how quickly information spreads and generates interactions.

As stated, we do not deal with opinions and predictions. The statement that is to be checked must contain certain facts or information, the accuracy or reliability of which can be verified. There are many examples of factual statements, but here are the most common:

• historical data,
• comparisons,
• legal aspect,
• statistics

Another thing to remember: verifying the statement must be feasible, within a reasonable time and with the resources available to us. Naturally, there will be announcements that we would like to check, but currently do not have the access or resources to do so.

Media

As #CivilNetCheck’s mission is to reduce the spread of lies, fake news and manipulations and to fight misinformation, from time to time we have to address the media and the fake news they spread.

The golden rule for #CivilNetCheck is that if the fake news has not received much attention, we never write about it ourselves, so as not to contribute to the spread of fake news. The team’s focus is on issues and topics that are important to the public.

Social networks

As social networks have become popular among the public in recent years and are a major source of information for many people, #CivilNetCheck monitors social media as well, trying to identify false posts and materials that are going viral. The team also pays attention to posts and publications that have gained wide distribution and circulation on social networks, becoming the subject of public discussion.

————————

Readers as #CivilNetCheck’s “Employers”

The success and effectiveness of #CivilNetCheck is also directly related to reader’s engagement and active participation. Because the news cycle is so large and saturated, we may miss false and misleading publications, materials and posts, so it is important for us that readers send us such publications for checking, should they notice such posts – and we encourage readers to do so. In addition, readers can submit claims, materials, posts and questions they find suspicious, through the CivilNet website or Facebook page, and we will make every effort to check them.

We are convinced that a united and unified fight against misinformation and lies is essential.

“Following up” on promises made

For #CivilNetCheck, it’s also important to help hold the government, authorities, government agencies, officials and political forces accountable to the public. All these persons and institutions regularly make promises.

We collect both the promises made during the pre-election campaign, as well as study the action plans of the government and communities, follow the statements of politicians, ministers and other officials, their interviews, press conferences, and notes.

#CivilNetCheck addresses only promises that are measurable and verifiable.

Through our promise-meter, we evaluate whether a given promise has been fulfilled or not, or at what stage it is. It has four categories.

Completed. This rating is given when the initial promise has been mostly or completely fulfilled.

In process. This rating shows that steps are being taken to fulfill the promise.

Not fulfilled. A promise is categorized this way if it has not been fulfilled or the steps taken to fulfill it are insignificant.

Uncertain. When it is impossible to find any information about the steps taken to fulfill the promise.

The ratings of the promises may change if the situation changes and steps are taken to implement a given promise.

The fact-checking process

The fact-checking process and tools may differ in each case. They may include a thorough search on Google and other search engines, researching online open sources, registries, surveys, calls, using various tools (especially for images and videos), and consulting with various experts.

#CivilNetCheck relies on primary sources and original documents. It directly accesses government reports, academic studies, and other data. It is not enough for us to get data and information second-hand.

When an investigation reveals that a claim or statement is untrue, false, manipulative, out of context, or false and meets our standards for fact-checked material, #CivilNetCheck addresses that claim in an article, video, infographic, or Facebook post. The choice of format is made as a joint decision between editors and journalists.

Since transparent, unbiased and responsible journalism is the main principle of #CivilNetCheck’s activity, we present the sources in our materials, attach links to all sources of analysis, and, if necessary, provide answers to inquiries and recordings. The goal is for the reader to also check and make sure that the investigation and the data used are accurate, if they wish to do so. #CivilNetCheck does not use sources that cannot be identified.

Corrections and Complaints Policy

Transparency is important in both receiving information and presenting it. Although the #CivilNetCheck team makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of the materials, errors cannot be avoided. The team fixes them quickly and clearly. They do not hide and do their best to make corrections appear in the same news cycle, highlighting the fact that a correction has been made.

Readers and others can contact us by email, via our Facebook page or by calling us directly in case they spot a mistake in our articles or to dispute any material. #CivilNetCheck will review all submissions to ensure they are correct, and will correct any errors in the published materials.

If a fact-checked material contains an essential, factual error, we make a correction. An alert text is placed at the top of the article explaining what has been fixed and why. Then, the correction is made in the text of the article and, if necessary, is reflected in the article’s title and verdict. It is also possible to refer to and explain the same topic in a separate article.

The Article’s Verdicts

#CivilNetCheck evaluates verified claims against a number of criteria. We have a truth-meter that has five categories:

Correct. The statement is completely accurate and there are no significant omissions.

True and false. The statement contains both true and false elements, and cannot be described by any judgment.

Without judgment. The available data and evidence are insufficient to determine the degree of accuracy of the claim.

Mostly false. The statement contains elements of truth, but key facts that would create a different impression are missing.

Incorrect. The statement is completely incorrect.

In addition to the categories in the truth-meter, we also have five other rulings that we make separately.

Misleading. Information that has been taken out of context, falsified or altered, with a distortion of real information and misleading arguments based on correct facts.

Groundless. The published claim is not substantiated, and there are no available facts and data to support it.

Fake. Completely fake content.

The Hedgehog – The content is intended to be derisive, but its derisive nature is not obvious.

Broken record. This judgment is made when public figures and the media spread claims that have already been checked and disproved.

Only facts

Keeping in mind that misinformation and false information are often widespread because there are no factual and accurate materials and references on these topics, #CivilNetCheck also prepares factual articles that provide the most accurate information from reliable sources on a given issue.

To ensure the editorial independence of our work when dealing with funding from local, foreign or international sources, we publicly list funding sources for each project, including the projects that fund #CivilnetCheck section, on our web page. When dealing with the donors our team is not constrained in any way to address the various issues.