Claim Control Process

Editor's Note

The fact-checking process at Dogrula consists of 5 stages: ‘selecting, pre-evaluating, reviewing, analyzing and presenting’. Only the editorial staff has the right to speak and intervene in all processes.

When selecting suspicious allegations for review, we look at the spread of the allegation, whether it is suspicious, its accuracy and whether it can be analyzed using only open sources.

If the allegation is widespread, if the allegation is false or the veracity of the allegation is in doubt, and if the conclusion of the investigation can only be reached using open sources, we investigate the allegation and prepare an analysis relevant to our investigation.

If a fact-checking analysis has an impact on a judicial process, is likely to incite criminal behavior, or is likely to incite hatred, we decide not to publish it.

While searching for the wrong, we first consider the ‘humanitarian benefit’ aspect when prioritizing content, posts, facts and news that we doubt. In this context, we prioritize topics that involve extraordinary situations such as ‘crisis, disaster and pandemic’.

For example, if there are 2 mistakes about the pandemic on the table:

We prioritize the one with the highest spread and the one that touches human lives the most.

Prioritized situations: Crisis, disaster, pandemic

Priority issues: Vaccine, Covid-19, refugees, economy

The topics on our editorial desk are analyzed in 3 groups:

Group: Priority situation, priority issue – Quick reaction
Group: Priority issue – Quick reaction
Group: Other allegations – Sort by

Selection

Dogrula editors examine whether some claims are true or not in their fact-checking analysis. Our editors have no vested interest in any step of these reviews and keep their political views out of the analysis. In addition, our editors are not members of any political organization or lobbying activity.
Dogrula editors make their selections primarily based on the topics and headlines on the agenda. Periodic media intensities such as crises, disasters, pandemics, local and national elections are prioritized in the triage phase, focusing on these flows. ‘Public opinion benefit, importance and prevalence’ criteria are taken into account in claim selection. Issues and information in need of fact-check are monitored through social media, news channels and citizen notifications.
Our allegation dissemination focus: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Ekşi Sözlük, major national news sites, prominent local news sites
Our editors prioritize accounts and sites that have shared a lot of misinformation in the past on social media platforms and news sites.
In addition, they also pre-examine reports received from our followers via Whatsapp, e-mail or social media. In addition, IFCN also monitors local and foreign fact-checking platforms that are members of IFCN. Fact-checks on these platforms that have a high spread in Turkey can be taken under preliminary review.

Preliminary Evaluation

Our editors decide whether to review the claim in the preliminary review section. In deciding this;

The allegation is checkable or falsifiable, the allegation is relatively controversial and important (for example, the allegation concerns the general public)
It pays attention to the availability and quality of sources that are accessible and sufficient to draw conclusions about the allegation. If our editors encounter any of the following reasons, they will not address the allegation.
If the allegation is concluded only with evidence that violates the right to privacy (Evidence that violates the right to privacy is not used in our investigations)
If the allegation is related to events, actions and developments that are under trial and will affect the judicial or investigation process.
If the examination of the allegation would support armed organizations or their propaganda, the allegation will not be examined.
If the allegation contains hate speech, is related to disadvantaged groups or if the allegation is likely to cause psychological harm to someone, our editors examine the allegation more carefully and take into account the possible harm the article may cause before publishing it.
Evidence that can only be gathered through intelligence activities and cases that cannot be solved without knowing the secret activities of states are not considered.
Content that is racist, sexist, homophobic, homophobic or denigrates a certain segment of society is avoided. Dogrula editors are responsible to the public in this regard.

Review

After being reviewed, the allegations are ranked. When creating this ranking, our editors ask the following questions.
“How important is it for society to examine the allegation? What is the urgency of examining the allegation? How long will it take to examine, write and publish the allegation? Is the allegation topical? Is the spread of the allegation high?”
According to the answers to these questions, the claims are organized in the order of review. As our editors communicate and cooperate in every process, they also exchange ideas with each other while creating the order of review. We make sure that each investigation is proofread at least once by someone other than the editor who wrote the story before publication.
Dogrula editors provide evidence for each relevant factual statement made in an investigation, relying on primary sources where possible. They identify relevant evidence that appears to support the allegation, as well as relevant evidence that appears to undermine the allegation, in their fact-checks.
In the process of reviewing allegations, the Dogrula team applies the following methods based on the principles of impartiality, honesty, simplicity and clarity, and update policy (no changes):
Investigating the content of the allegations subject to review using traditional journalistic and scientific methods
Analyzing the findings and conducting detailed web research about them
Extracting and transcribing the data suitable for reporting
Create templates, visuals and lists of data
Organizing and sorting data to make it ready for presentation to the reader

Analyzing

The post to be analyzed can be a photo, article, video or text. The evaluation method may vary depending on the type of post analyzed.
After checking the authenticity of the visual content with technical tools, their compatibility with the textual content is compared with other reliable sources.
The use of open sources is prioritized in checking these sources. In cases where the sources for fact-check are not publicly available (subject to separate assessment of their reliability and validity), official and unofficial documents, as well as the opinions of parties and experts, may be used to supplement the original evidence. When quoting experts, establish their credibility on the relevant issue.
Provides at least two sources, preferably more, to corroborate the central claim of an investigation, except where a single relevant source is available. Use the best available primary, not secondary, sources of evidence wherever appropriate primary sources are available.
Dogrula clearly identifies all its sources, except where their security is at risk. In such exceptional cases, anonymous sources are only used if the information they provide is supported by named sources or material evidence.
In the analysis process, Dogrula editors evaluate sources based on a hierarchy of reliability and validity.
In the analysis process, the interests of the sources of the evidence found are also taken into account before drawing conclusions.

Preliminary Evaluation

Our editors decide whether to review the claim in the preliminary review section. In deciding this;

The allegation is checkable or falsifiable, the allegation is relatively controversial and important (for example, the allegation concerns the general public)
It pays attention to the availability and quality of sources that are accessible and sufficient to draw conclusions about the allegation. If our editors encounter any of the following reasons, they will not address the allegation.
If the allegation is concluded only with evidence that violates the right to privacy (Evidence that violates the right to privacy is not used in our investigations)
If the allegation is related to events, actions and developments that are under trial and will affect the judicial or investigation process.
If the examination of the allegation would support armed organizations or their propaganda, the allegation will not be examined.
If the allegation contains hate speech, is related to disadvantaged groups or if the allegation is likely to cause psychological harm to someone, our editors examine the allegation more carefully and take into account the possible harm the article may cause before publishing it.
Evidence that can only be gathered through intelligence activities and cases that cannot be solved without knowing the secret activities of states are not considered.
Content that is racist, sexist, homophobic, homophobic or denigrates a certain segment of society is avoided. Dogrula editors are responsible to the public in this regard.

Public Presentation

At the end of the fact-checking process, Dogrula editors write a fact-check analysis and make the evaluation available to the reader via the Dogrula.org website.
In the analysis, in addition to the research process and evaluation, the background of the post analyzed, its impact and the quality of the sources used for evidence are briefly stated.
A summary version of the analysis is shared on Dogrula’s social media accounts. However, since this summary version is not always sufficient to understand the analysis, users are advised to read the full review on Dogrula’s website.